Oral Answers to Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Colombia

Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on compliance by the Colombian Government with commitments made at the London conference in July.

Bill Rammell: Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, as you know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is today paying an important visit to Dublin, and is thus unable to be present for Foreign Office questions. He has given his apologies to you and the Opposition Front Bench, and, through you, to the House.
	The London declaration issued at the meeting in July was an important milestone in the international community's efforts to support Colombia. The Colombian Government assure us that they take seriously the commitments that they made at London, and we look forward to an evaluation of progress up to the end of the year by the working group in Bogota of 10 countries present at the London meeting.

Lynne Jones: Have not the Colombian Government blatantly ignored the pledge that they gave at the London conference to implement the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? Not only are the Uribe Government giving further judicial powers to the military, but even the President has smeared respected non-governmental organisations as fronts for terrorism, putting the lives of human rights defenders at risk. At the forthcoming donors' conference, will the British Government press for conditions to be attached to the provision of aid to Colombia?

Bill Rammell: On that point, in general terms, we are attaching conditions, and have made it clear that our assistance is given with the expectation of an ongoing commitment on the part of the Colombian authorities with regard to human rights. On my hon. Friend's comments on President Uribe's statement about human rights groups, we have always made it clear—and I have done so directly to the Colombian Government and to President Uribe—that if there are concerns about specific human rights groups, they should be dealt with through due legal process, and other human rights groups should not be implicated within that process. Nevertheless, it is important to state that the Colombian Government have assured us that they are committed to tackling paramilitary groups, and some progress is being made. Indeed, recently, army and police officials have been arrested for their alleged links with paramilitaries, and a number of paramilitaries have been captured in recent months, which I very much welcome.

John Wilkinson: Will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that the FARC and the ELN have murdered, maimed, kidnapped and dispossessed more people in recent years than all Islamic terrorists put together, or the Irish Republican Army? In those circumstances, the democratically elected Government of President Uribe deserve the full support of the British Government in terms of technical assistance, political assistance, overseas aid and in any other manner that can help to eradicate this cancer from the country, especially as it is propagated thanks to the vile narcotics trade in which these terrorist groups indulge.

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the cancer of the narcotics trade, which, regardless of whatever political motivation was at the origin of this dispute, is now driving a significant civil war. We support the Government of President Uribe and give assistance. At the same time, however, we make it clear that the critical importance of human rights must be upheld, which we will continue to do.

Zimbabwe

Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of the situation in Zimbabwe following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria.

Chris Mullin: The Zimbabwe Government's decision to withdraw from the Commonwealth serves only to highlight the increasing isolation of the Mugabe regime. It will do nothing to ease the deepening political, economic and humanitarian crisis. We look forward to welcoming Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth once there has been a return to democracy and the rule of law.

Nicholas Winterton: While I thank the Minister for that reply, will he not accept the stark reality that the Commonwealth and the developed civilised world have failed the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe? With so much agricultural territory now out of production for the fourth growing season, half the population relying on food aid, people digging up coffins because they need to make ends meet, people living out in the bush without a roof, and young children in tatters begging on street corners, is it not about time that the civilised world took action against this brutal despot, Robert Mugabe?

Chris Mullin: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern—I am sure that all Members do—at the condition of many people in Zimbabwe, but I am not sure what he is suggesting. Surely he is not suggesting an invasion. It is hard to see where his line of questioning is leading. It is true that the situation in Zimbabwe is dire, but it would be helpful if he were more explicit, because if he has any useful suggestions we would certainly be glad to take them up.

Kate Hoey: I wonder whether the Minister will consider my suggestion on furthering sanctions against Zimbabwe. Perhaps they should be immediately extended to the wives and children of the 79 people who are already suffering from sanctions.
	Does the Minister not think that it is a good idea that, at last, we have decided to take the issue to the United Nations Security Council to seek a resolution? Even if we do not get a resolution the first time, we will bring the matter into the international arena rather than leaving it as a Commonwealth and African issue.

Chris Mullin: The EU sanctions are up for renewal in February, and we will certainly examine ways to extend them. My hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Secretary has said that he does not believe that sanctions should be extended to children.
	There is no point in pursuing a resolution at the UN unless there is a possibility of success. When it has been raised on previous occasions it has fallen to no-action motions. That just helps Mugabe, which we do not want to do.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister share Archbishop Desmond Tutu's criticism of the South African Government for not supporting sanctions against Zimbabwe? Does he agree with the archbishop's comment that human rights abuses are human rights abuses wherever they take place, and that Africa should not be treated separately from the rest of the world?

Chris Mullin: Yes, we share Archbishop Desmond Tutu's concerns. He said that events in Zimbabwe are reprehensible and unacceptable. As the right hon. Gentleman said, human rights are indivisible and apply everywhere, regardless of regimes. The archbishop went on to say that there are not African human rights and human rights for everybody else. We entirely agree that human rights should apply universally.

Ian Davidson: What steps are being taken to assist those among Zimbabwe's neighbours who are adversely affected by Zimbabwe's plight because, in particular, they are receiving floods of refugees? I am thinking in particular of Mozambique and Botswana.

Chris Mullin: The largest number of refugees are, of course, in South Africa, but they are also in Botswana and Mozambique. We have a large aid programme in Mozambique and a more modest one in Botswana. We also have close relations with South Africa.

Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), will the Minister be less dismissive of the initiative at the UN? Surely there is something to be said for this country and its allies making it abundantly plain how deeply we despise and deplore this tyrannical regime. Even if some UN members refuse to sign up, should they not be exposed as accessories after the fact?

Chris Mullin: We have raised the issue of Zimbabwe with various UN agencies, but such resolutions fall to no-action motions, which gets us nowhere. Nobody is in any doubt about how strongly people in this country feel about events in Zimbabwe and how strongly many people in Zimbabwe feel. We must recognise that internal dynamics will end the regime. It is not possible to run a country for very long when there is 80 per cent. unemployment and 700 per cent. inflation, and when foreigners have to help feed half the people. Inevitably, such a state of affairs must end sooner or later. We must ensure that it ends in a dignified and orderly manner that does not inflict even greater damage to the much put-upon people of Zimbabwe.

Michael Ancram: After Abuja, is it not clear that the Government's adoption of the South African policy of quiet diplomacy has been an abject failure? Will they stop pussyfooting and, with the European Union and the US, start genuinely to tighten the screws on Mugabe? Why will they not make sanctions work? We should stop Mugabe and his henchmen from swanning around the world as though there were no sanctions and we should freeze the assets of the despicable business men who still bankroll him. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said, the Government should ask the UN Security Council to put monitors into Zimbabwe. If at first the Security Council says no, they should try, try and try again until it accepts its responsibility. When will they stop walking by on the other side and start taking a lead?

Chris Mullin: With all due respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman demeans himself. He knows very well that there is no policy of quiet diplomacy—goodness me, we could not have been louder or clearer about what we think. Even if we had wanted to adopt a policy of quiet diplomacy, he and hon. Members from all parties would not have allowed us to do that. We should not be under any illusions. Sanctions will not bring an end to the state of affairs because the internal dynamics in Zimbabwe will stop the problem. All the huffing and puffing in the world may give the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfaction but it will achieve nothing. We are interested in doing something that will make a difference.

Great Lakes Region

Judy Mallaber: What further help his Department is giving the countries of the Great Lakes region.

Chris Mullin: Our aim is to build political support for peace and stability in the region. The key to this is the completion of the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi. Active diplomacy and the support of the international community have been vital factors in resolving these conflicts.

Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We must see an end to the illegal trade in diamonds and precious commodities that pays for the arms that do so much to sustain conflict in the great lakes and elsewhere. What action will the Government take on the recommendations made by the UN panel of experts on the exploitation of resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? What other measures will my hon. Friend and the Government introduce to help to minimise conflict in the region?

Chris Mullin: We certainly want an end to the illegal trade in diamonds and other precious commodities, which, as my hon. Friend says, has been responsible for sustaining the conflict. That is why we were keen for the UN panel to be set up. I have convened a meeting tomorrow to discuss how we may take forward the recommendations in the panel's most recent report that apply to us. We are also pressing Rwanda and Uganda to follow up the recommendations that relate to them. The difficulty with taking action against the few British companies that are named in the report is that there is currently insufficient detailed evidence that would enable prosecutions, but we are seeking that.
	Of course, we have played a wide role in Burundi and the Congo. We are contributing a military chief of staff and about £28 million to the military force in eastern Congo that is bringing stability to the region. We made a major contribution—just under £4 million—to help to finance the African-led peace forces in Burundi. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the key is bringing stability to the Congo. If we can do that, we will manage to stabilise the entire region.

Gibraltar

Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on progress with the Brussels process.

Denis MacShane: The Government have repeatedly made it clear that there will be no change in Gibraltar's sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. The Government's objectives remain to secure a stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and we will continue our dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar to this end. No date has been set for future Brussels process talks.

Tim Loughton: Given that 98.5 per cent. of the population of Gibraltar again voted in a referendum against any sharing of sovereignty with the Spanish, that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has been re-elected with more than 50 per cent. of the vote on that platform, that Gibraltarians will be represented in the European Parliament from next year, and that the Spanish have apparently just negotiated a deal for a sub-Mediterranean tunnel with the Moroccans, with whom they have territorial disputes, will the Minister tell us what progress has been achieved on the availability of the phone lines and health care that the Spanish provide for the Gibraltarians? What progress has been made on the ridiculous business involving having to fly over Spanish territory on Gibraltar flights that cannot land? Such a right would be accorded under treaty to any other member of the EU.

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes good and fair points. We want Spanish recognition of the 00350 number for Gibraltar, but they are not yet willing to concede that. The Government of Gibraltar have asked us to create a wider overseas territories number of 0044, but the other overseas territories are not interested in that solution. We will continue negotiating with the Spanish and talking to them about the problem. They could send a positive signal to the people of Gibraltar and be helpful on the situation with the telephone lines.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the Minister spoke about the Brussels process and we are all aware that Gibraltar celebrates its 300-year anniversary next year. The way in which Spain delivers its constant ultimatums to Gibraltar must be the longest-running sore leg that anyone has ever had. Under the process, would not it be a challenge to celebrate those 300 years by ending the joint talks on sovereignty once and for all? The Minister should tell us what good news he has for Gibraltar and what he will do for those 300-year celebrations next year.

Denis MacShane: It is an important anniversary. It reflects the occupation of the Rock by a combined Dutch and British fleet during the Spanish war of succession when France tried to dictate its will to Spain and we stoutly resisted the imposition of what it wanted to do 300 years ago. I am happy to inform the House that the Princess Royal will visit Gibraltar to represent all of us at the historic moment. The Duke of Kent is coming to the service in St. Clement Danes, and the Ministry of Defence and other Departments will participate fully in that important historical anniversary.

John Bercow: What about you?

Denis MacShane: If I have the chance to visit Gibraltar next year, as I did this year, I shall take it with enormous pleasure.

Côte d'Ivoire

Cheryl Gillan: What representations he has received about the situation in the Côte d'Ivoire; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Mullin: We remain concerned about the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. We are in regular contact with the parties and key members of the international community, including France and the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS.

Cheryl Gillan: I, too, am concerned about the situation in Côte d'Ivoire. My constituent, who is from that country, came to see me the other day with several of his fellow countrymen. They support the Linas-Marcoussis agreement, despite the fragility of the ceasefire, but believe that France is playing a double game, favouring the rebels and harrying the Government because they have tried to open their markets rather than continuing with the French monopoly. Will the Minister agree to meet my constituent and his colleagues to discuss how the Government can, in my constituent's words, use their influence to ensure that the French do not bully African poor states that choose to open their economies to a wider trade area?

Chris Mullin: I do not accept that for a moment. We support the role that the French have played. Their intervention has avoided civil war in the Côte d'Ivoire. The solution is for all sides to implement the Linas-Marcoussis agreement, which addresses the root causes of the crisis. If the hon. Lady wishes to bring constituents to see me to discuss the subject, I would be glad to meet them.

Tony Cunningham: We have rightly had questions on Zimbabwe, the Côte d'Ivoire and the great lakes area, and attention is focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. However, is not there a danger of taking our eye off the ball on problems like the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which when war broke out in 1998 cost the lives of about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Diversity Targets

Tony Wright: What progress his Department is making towards meeting its diversity targets.

Mike O'Brien: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office targets for diversity have been met for recruitment and we are making progress on staff already in post.

Tony Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Why does he think that the Foreign Office is dragging so far behind other Departments in terms of the number of women and ethnic minority people that it employs? More than one in 10 children in our schools are from ethnic minorities, yet half of 1 per cent. of people from ethnic minorities are at senior levels in the Foreign Office. If the Foreign Office really is Britain's face on the world, should not that face be far more representative than it currently is?

Mike O'Brien: It should be far more representative than it currently is. That is why we have set realistic targets to make that change. Targets have to be realistically achievable. The Foreign Office started in 1997 from a low base. There were few women, few ethnic minority staff and few disabled people. The Foreign Office promotes internally and it therefore takes time to change things, but we are changing things.
	I am told that until 1972 women had to resign from the Foreign Office on marriage. As a result, we lost a whole generation of ambassadors who would have been in post now. Likewise with ethnic minorities there were restrictions on the employment of persons with parents of certain nationalities, and no effort was made to recruit disabled people. However, things are changing in the Foreign Office. Today there are family friendly policies and flexible working. An FCO nursery started 18 months ago. Promotion is based on skill and competence, not on time served. Likewise we are attracting ethnic minority recruits. We have doubled the number of ethnic minority staff from 3.4 per cent. in 1997 to 6.8 per cent. today. In the B grade, the important grade, it is 8.6 per cent.
	Two ambassadors from ethnic minority communities were recently appointed: Mohammed Chowdry to Bangladesh and Alp Mehmet to Iceland, Britain's first Muslim ambassador. The number of women ambassadors has doubled from nine in 1997 to 18 now. Things are changing in the Foreign Office. The people from ethnic minorities and the women we are recruiting today will be the ambassadors of the future.

Qatar

Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with representatives of the Amir of Qatar in respect of democracy in Qatar.

Bill Rammell: The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other British Ministers have had frequent discussions with the Amir and his representatives on the Amir's democratisation programme.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the advice and assistance that has been given by our colleagues to the Qatar Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is not a matter of one-size-fits-all in terms of democracy, it is always preferential throughout the world not to have rule by tyrants? On that issue, will my hon. Friend enlighten us as to whether Saddam Hussein—we welcome the fact that he was found the other day—is now enjoying the hospitality of Qatar?

Bill Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I share his view about the position of tyrants throughout the world. Saddam Hussein is being held under coalition authority in a US facility. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I shall not comment further on where Saddam Hussein is being held for obvious security reasons. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's view about tyrants. The capture of Saddam is extremely welcome. While being a cause for celebration I think that there is an important opportunity as well to reach out in reconciliation with the Iraqi people, who have suffered so much under Saddam's torture.

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept that Qatar, to a large extent, put itself very much on the line for us as the situation with Saudi Arabia deteriorated in the build up to the recent Gulf conflict? As somebody who has worked in that part of the world in neighbouring Bahrain, I believe that we owe it to the small Gulf states such as Qatar, which stood by us at the crucial moment, to ensure constitutional stability. While democracy is a good aim, the most important thing for people in that part of the world is constitutional stability so that they enjoy the peace that has come naturally from the removal of a terrible tyrant.

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Like him, I regard Qatar as a firm regional friend and ally. It is important that we make that point clear. It is well worth saying that there has been significant progress within Qatar towards democratisation. It is particularly noteworthy and welcome that Qatar was the first Gulf state to give the vote to women, something we strongly support.

Intergovernmental Conference

Anne McIntosh: What progress has been made in concluding the intergovernmental conference.

Denis MacShane: As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement yesterday, the intergovernmental conference did not reach agreement at the weekend. We expect discussions on the timetable of any future negotiations to be taken forward by presidencies next year.

Anne McIntosh: On 14 May, the Prime Minister said that the
	"European Convention . . . is necessary to make the accession work."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]
	Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the Nice treaty only takes effect in one year's time. Should not the Government have taken up Berlusconi's suggestion and discussed women and football for the past 22 months, rather than a treaty that in the final analysis was not agreed and was not needed until 2009?

Denis MacShane: I am sorry that the hon. Lady, who knows a great deal about Europe, should adopt such a negative tone. There were things in the draft constitutional treaty that we would want to support—enhanced powers for Parliament and the standing chairman of the Council of Ministers representing the nation states of Europe getting the institutional balance right. However, we could not come to an agreement at the weekend, and many of the comments made across Europe that we need a pause and time for reflection are quite right. However, the White Paper that we published on 9 September made the position perfectly clear:
	"If a new Treaty cannot be agreed, or ratified, then the EU would still carry on under its current arrangements; and it would have the same functions as it has today."
	That is from paragraph 26 of the White Paper published on 9 September.

Kelvin Hopkins: Given that the dreams of the federalists were shattered at the weekend, and that even now they are talking of taking revenge on Poland and Spain, which could increase the acrimony, is it not time to look at an alternative vision of Europe based on independent democratic states co-operating on the basis of consensus on matters of mutual interest? Is not Britain well placed to introduce such a proposal?

Denis MacShane: I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend for his robust position on European issues. However, I cannot think of any business in my constituency that would not want to have the rules of the European Union in place to make sure that the single market works, which requires both rules and the means to enforce them. I cannot think of any tourist from my constituency who would not wish to have the E111 systems and other rights that flow from them because the European Union and enforceable rules exist. If my hon. Friend genuinely wishes to return to a Europe not of consensual states but of states bickering, conflicting and putting up barriers and frontiers to everything, that is his vision—it is certainly the Opposition's vision—but it is not what the interests of the British nation demand.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister think that it is sustainable in the long term that Germany, the largest net contributor to the EU budget with a population of 80 million, should have only two more votes in the Council than, say, Poland, which has a population of 40 million and is likely to be a recipient of substantial EU funds?

Denis MacShane: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point, but the voters of Bremen, with 500,000 voters in a German Land, have exactly the same number of representatives as the voters of North Rhine-Westphalia, which has 18 million voters, in the German Bundesrat. That is common across the world. Getting the balance right is difficult, and at the weekend we found that one side took one position and another side a different one. We tried to build bridges, which is rather a good thing for Britain to do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be speaking simply about Germany and the idea that the bigger the population the more power a place should have, but I am not entirely sure that that position will be shared by the rest of Europe.

Keith Vaz: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the work that they did on the negotiations? However, did the outcome of the summit last weekend result in the best possible position for our Government? If people are unhappy about the way in which matters were discussed and concluded, is it not better to have a pause so that we can effectively start again and make sure that there is even more adequate parliamentary scrutiny? We should also ensure that when we have an agreement everyone sticks to it and accepts it—that is surely the right position for our country.

Denis MacShane: As one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend will recall that when the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice were negotiated Opposition Front Benchers said that those treaties would take us into a superstate and there should be a referendum on them. Similarly, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that the treaty of Maastricht would take us towards a superstate, and Tony Benn, the former right hon. Member for Chesterfield, told us 30 years ago that we were on the way to a superstate. That has not yet happened, but my hon. Friend is right—time to pause and reflect is broadly welcome across the European Union. However, we should be careful that that does not allow those who want to put up new barriers and frontiers against Europe working successfully to start to gain the upper hand and does not assist the Opposition policy of taking us to the exit door of the European Union.

Angus Robertson: While it is regrettable that certain positive elements of the draft constitution will not come to fruition, will the Minister confirm that the collapse of the intergovernmental conference agreement on the draft constitution will not hold back the accession to the European Union of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey? Will he commit the UK Government to doing everything in their power to help speed the accession of those three countries?

Denis MacShane: The answer is clearly yes. We got good language on Romania and Bulgaria, and we remain a firm and committed supporter of Turkish accession if the criteria are met. However, the House should have no illusions. As Europe becomes fractious, does not move forward and takes time for pause and reflection, there are huge forces in other major European countries opposed to Turkish accession and unhappy with enlargement. Those who continually decry a functioning and effective European Union based on partnership should reflect on what that will do to the hopes that we all have for the accession of the next wave of incoming countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mike Gapes: Is not the failure to reach agreement this week better than reaching the wrong agreement? Although, unfortunately, disagreements between Poland and Germany in particular, and between other countries, were the principal reason for the failure, the fact that the British Government worked so hard and achieved a great deal of progress shows that we have moved from isolation in 1997 to being central to attaining a long-term solution to such problems. Is that not a defeat for the whingers and Europhobes in the Conservative party?

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. It is difficult for the Opposition, with their continual rancid anti-Europeanism from almost every part of the Conservative Benches, to accept the fact that Britain's engagement in the European Union is good for Britain and good for Europe. The Prime Minister's role in seeking to bring different elements of the European Union together was widely recognised over the weekend. Many of the British demands were recognised and would have been in the final constitutional treaty. I am proud of the fact that we are a country engaged in Europe, at the centre of Europe, in Europe and helping to run Europe. Woe betide our nation if the policy of the Conservative party to take us to the exit door of Europe ever became reality.

Michael Ancram: The Prime Minister lectured us yesterday on the importance of being on the playing field. Perhaps, but surely not if it means going on scoring own goals; surely not if he has to sell out our right to determine our own asylum and immigration policy; surely not if it means he has to bow to the primacy of the European constitution; and above all, surely not if it means undermining NATO. Why did the Prime Minister, who promised no separate military planning capability for the European defence force, agree to a separate planning cell, which the French rightly boast will grow into something much bigger? When will the Government stop giving away goals and start playing for Britain?

Denis MacShane: For the same reason, I imagine, as President Bush welcomed the work of the Prime Minister in securing a good deal on European defence. The notion that our country's or our allies' interests would be served by Britain isolating itself from co-operation with our main defence partners is absurd—a danger to the United States and the rest of Europe. The only thing that concerns everyone in Europe is the fact that there is one major opposition party in this great democracy that is out there on the far right of the anti-European wing. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues maintain the position that he expressed again today or the hatred towards Europe that we heard from the Front Bench yesterday, his party will remain permanently out of power.

Michael Ancram: The Minister obviously has not been listening to the voices from his own Benches today. He has not exactly had a lot of support. The Prime Minister has accepted that the constitution is not necessary. Why, then, are the Government trying to resurrect it? Is it not clear from the reactions to Saturday's fiasco that our partners in Europe see it, in the words of the Belgian Prime Minister, as
	"the capstone for a federal Europe"?
	Why do the Government not take this golden opportunity to start afresh and to develop a Europe that works for its peoples and not its political elites? Why will they not take their courage in their hands, stand up for British interests and call for the constitution to be scrapped?

Denis MacShane: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, the Government set up a special Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, which has met for three very long sittings. Never before in British history has a treaty been subject to such parliamentary scrutiny while it is under negotiation. Not a single Opposition Front Bencher turned up for any of those sittings, and only three Conservative Members of Parliament out of 160-odd Members bothered to do so. It is that contempt for parliamentary scrutiny on the part of the Opposition that is our worst problem. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to some of the meetings where Europe is discussed, as he might learn something to his advantage.

France

Wayne David: If he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's bilateral relationship with France.

Denis MacShane: Bilateral relations with France are good. Last month's UK-French summit showed how we work closely with France on a range of important issues. Next year, we plan to celebrate the centenary of the entente cordiale.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for that positive answer. The entente cordiale celebrations will be important, but will he ensure that young people are fully involved in them, as well as Members of this House?

Denis MacShane: I am discussing with my opposite number in Paris a joint meeting of the House of Commons and the Assemblée Nationale. Providing that the proposal gets parliamentary approval, I hope that all hon. Members who want to participate will do so. I am also in discussions with a number of organisations and companies, including Eurostar and Eurotunnel, about bringing together schoolchildren to learn something of our common history. That history goes back a thousand years to when the French invaded and colonised us, but it is necessary that we learn from each other and drop the rather unappealing Francophobic remarks that we hear too often in some of our press and occasionally from the Opposition Benches.

John Bercow: Strong bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and France require, among other things, mutual candour and understanding, so perhaps the Minister will answer today the question that the Prime Minister ducked yesterday. What is the difference in meaning between the phrase "ever closer union", which the Foreign Secretary boasted had been dropped from the draft constitution, and the phrase "united ever more closely"?

Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman demanded candour, but he will remember what Lord Canning said:
	"But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
	Save me, oh, save me, from the candid friend."
	However, I will be candid with him: his question had absolutely nothing to do with France. If he reads the statement made yesterday, he will see that the Prime Minister explained the point.

Afghanistan

Joan Ruddock: If he will make a statement on the situation in Afghanistan.

Mike O'Brien: Afghanistan has made progress towards the goals of the Bonn agreement, but much remains to be done. The constitutional Loya Jirga this month is an important opportunity for the people of Afghanistan to create a new constitution. I was in Afghanistan in October and discussed the political process with the Transitional Administration, including President Karzai. That included ensuring a role for women. I also raised a series of other issues, including security.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating Afghan women, who comprise 20 per cent. of the delegates and one vice-chairperson at the Loya Jirga that is currently considering the draft constitution? Is he aware that the committee on women's rights at the Loya Jirga has drawn up a list of amendments that would ensure constitutional equality for women? Does he accept that the international advisers at the Loya Jirga have a duty to ensure that any new constitution complies with CEDAW, the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women, and that Afghan women are at last freed from legalised oppression?

Mike O'Brien: I certainly agree that the new constitution should comply with CEDAW. It is of course for the Afghans to decide what is in their constitution—all we can do is advise them. My hon. Friend is entirely right that the constitutional Loya Jirga has at least 95 women among its 450 delegates, a fifth of whom are therefore women. As I look at the array of men—with the exception of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)—on the Conservative Benches, I am reminded that we have fewer women Members than the Loya Jirga—only 18 per cent. of the House of Commons is female. Before we get holier than thou about these matters, we should bear it in mind that Afghanistan is doing slightly better than us.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the advances in Afghanistan, but does the Minister share my concern about press reports suggesting that Government planning people have been demolishing people's houses to build palaces and Government buildings without rehousing them beforehand?

Mike O'Brien: We need to ensure that the Afghans have the ability to run their Government properly, as well as their schools and other institutions, and of course they must do so in a way that respects people's human rights, including the right to have their homes respected.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is aware that the United Kingdom is the lead member of the coalition in terms of the counter-narcotics effort in Afghanistan. To that end, will he comment on recent press reports saying that the United States wants to take a much more vigorous approach towards destroying the opium poppy harvest next February? If those reports are true, they will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where people are getting fed up with the devastating impact of ever cheaper heroin on our communities.

Mike O'Brien: We are taking the lead in dealing with the issue of drugs, but the United States is providing enormous assistance in those efforts, and we hope that the US authorities, who have troops in areas of Afghanistan where we do not, will be able to assist the Afghans in eradicating crops wherever possible. It is important that we get this right, and that requires that the British, the Americans and, most particularly, the Afghan authorities should ensure that the drugs policy is effective and delivers.

Gary Streeter: Conservative Members very much support the Loya Jirga process that is in train, and hope for a positive outcome.
	Returning to the important matter of heroin production, which was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), will the Minister spell out precisely the resources that his Government are putting behind what the US Administration described to me last week in Washington as the weed-whacking programme—the systematic strimming of poppy fields? Is he aware of that programme; when will it start; how many acres does he expect to be eradicated in the first 12 months; and what security will be offered to the teams carrying out that vital work?

Mike O'Brien: The detail of how the process of eradication will be carried out is still being discussed on the ground by the Americans, the Afghans and ourselves. It is an enormously important process. The Afghan Government are committed to working with us and the Americans in eliminating opium poppy cultivation over 10 years, but they cannot do it alone. The programme requires sustained commitment by the international community, and that is being provided.

European Constitution

Andrew Selous: What the Government's policy is on asylum provisions in the draft European constitution.

Denis MacShane: The draft treaty provides a basis for common rules on asylum to be adopted by qualified majority voting. We will of course retain the right to decide whether to opt in to asylum measures. If the proposal was not in the UK's interests, we would not have signed up to it. The EU-wide database system—Eurodac—and the revised Dublin treaty have helped us to identify and return asylum shoppers to the EU countries where they first arrived or claimed asylum.

Andrew Selous: I wonder whether the Minister could clear up a little confusion by telling the House what was the purpose of the Leader of the House trying to delete seven sub-paragraphs from article III.167? Those sub-paragraphs dealt with asylum and would have enabled policy on the matter to be decided by a majority of other states. The amendment failed, so I do not understand how the Prime Minister could claim yesterday that
	"we are not giving up the power to set our asylum laws".—[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1334.]
	Was that not a vanishing red line that the Government did not even try to win?

Denis MacShane: The draft constitutional treaty was not agreed, so the question does not arise, except theoretically.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister now give a reply to my hon. Friend? If all seven of those asylum powers were to be removed from the constitution by the amendment tabled by the then Minister for Europe, why, according to the White Paper, is the issue no longer a red line or even being demanded at the intergovernmental conference? Why have the Government dropped their objections and removed our powers to set our own definitions and details on asylum in any future constitution?

Denis MacShane: Under article 63 of the existing treaty, there is a common asylum problem, and we have the right to opt in. We need to work with our partners. The closure of Sangatte would not have been brought about by the Conservatives' anti-European policy; nor would the setting up of our Europe-wide database. This is a theoretical discussion, as I have said, but QMV could have been very helpful to us in terms of advancing common European policy on asylum. If we want other countries to help us with asylum issues relating to returning or transit, it is vital that we should be there to discuss those issues with them. I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in raising this question. Perhaps when he tabled it, he did not know where things would stand today. This point remains to be debated, because we will not achieve a sensible asylum deal, which is of vital interest to all our constituents, by turning our back on co-operation and partnership with Europe.

Sierra Leone

Patrick Mercer: What plans he has for further funding for the special court for Sierra Leone.

Bill Rammell: The UK is committed to the success of the special court for Sierra Leone. The model that has been pursued in Sierra Leone is far more cost-effective than other mechanisms of post-conflict restorative justice that have been established throughout the world. We are the third largest contributor to the court, and we are doing all we can to secure sufficient funds for it. In that regard, we have lobbied more than 45 states to contribute or increase their contributions to the court, and we are considering a range of options to secure funding for it.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I am sure that he will join me in praising the work of the special court. Will he assure me, however, that he fully understands the funding crisis that it now faces? Will he also assure me that the year 3 contribution will be brought forward, and that the relocation agreement for the site of the court will be brought forward with some dispatch, so that the important trials that need to take place can do so quickly?

Bill Rammell: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance and role of the court. As I made clear in my opening answer, if we compare this system of post-conflict restorative justice with other mechanisms that have been used throughout the world, we can see that it is a highly cost-effective and realistic mechanism for delivering such justice. We are considering bringing forward the funding, and we are exploring ways of increasing our contribution. We are apprised of the importance of the court and are making strenuous efforts to persuade others to contribute as we are doing.

Kashmir

John Mann: If he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in Kashmir.

Mike O'Brien: We welcome the recent ceasefire along the line of control, agreed by both India and Pakistan, to improve their relations. Last week, I visited the line of control and the Kashmiri communities close to it, and the human significance of the ceasefire was clear. I visited a school that had been closed for months following shelling but has now reopened. Shops, too, were reopening. I hope that sustained efforts by both India and Pakistan to address each other's concerns will pave the way for a process aimed at settling all their outstanding differences, including the issue of Kashmir.

John Mann: Considering our long-standing friendship with both Pakistan and India, and considering that the world's attention has been focused on other areas in recent times, will the Minister assure the House that we will use our unique friendship in every possible way to help to promote the process that is beginning to emerge there, and to ensure that no terrorist of any kind who wishes to break the agreement is given haven in this country?

Mike O'Brien: We will use our friendship with both India and Pakistan to try to advance the discussions that are taking place between them. They must work through the process themselves, but we will help wherever we can. Our view on terrorism is well known: it is that terrorism in any circumstances is unacceptable, and we oppose it strongly.

Hugh Robertson: Given that nuclear instability is one of the most serious threats to world peace, and given that it is most likely to occur between India and Pakistan, can the Minister tell us what progress the Foreign Office has made in connection with the development of a nuclear doctrine between the two countries?

Mike O'Brien: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I hope that he will enjoy his time there, and that we will enjoy his being there.
	We urge the Governments of both Indian and Pakistan to accede to the non-proliferation and the comprehensive test ban treaties immediately and without conditions. We hope that they will also develop a doctrine on the handling of nuclear weapons that involves a level of controls. We are concerned about the way in which controls are imposed in both India and Pakistan, to some extent. We have discussed the issue with them and there have been substantial improvements, but I am sure they would agree that we can always seek further improvements in nuclear doctrine.

Zimbabwe

David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Zimbabwe.

Chris Mullin: The security situation in Zimbabwe remains tense. There is currently political and social unrest, coupled with deteriorating economic conditions. Nationwide strikes, "stayaways" and demonstrations earlier this year have led to confrontations with the security forces, violent incidents and arrests. We monitor the security situation closely, and regularly update our travel advice to reflect changing circumstances.

David Taylor: Robert Mugabe presides over a country in which democracy is dying, the economy is in tatters, and social strife is endemic. Does the Minister agree that following Zimbabwe's withdrawal from the Commonwealth its President will feel even less accountable to the international community, and that consequently human rights and the rule of law will be even more battered? What plans are there to protect the remaining British community from such a maelstrom if it does occur?

Chris Mullin: We have contingency plans in case the situation deteriorates further, but they are just that—contingency plans. We see no particular threat at present to the remaining members of the British community in Zimbabwe, although, as my hon. Friend says, the situation is bad and is deteriorating.

Middle East

Tom Harris: When he next expects to visit Israel and the West Bank.

Bill Rammell: The Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Israel or the West Bank, but he is in frequent contact with members of the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority.

Tom Harris: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming Prime Minister Sharon's latest statements to the effect that he is prepared unilaterally to dismantle some Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza, regardless of the success or otherwise of bilateral talks with the Palestinians? Does he, however, share my concern about the fact that every time we are anywhere near the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel, measures and discussions are derailed by terrorist actions on the part of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? What support can the Government give the Palestinians and the Israeli Government to ensure that future talks are not derailed in a similar fashion?

Bill Rammell: I welcome any indication of moves in support of the implementation of the road map on either side in this tragic dispute. That means that the Palestinian Authority must take action to tackle terrorism, but also that Israel must fulfil its commitment to freeze all settlement activity and remove settlement outposts. While we understand Israel's legitimate security concerns, I think that the building of a fence on occupied land is unlawful and is not helping.

Middle East

Nick Gibb: If he will make a statement on his policy in the middle east.

Bill Rammell: The Government are fully committed to the clear objective of two states—Israel, and an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state—living side by side in peace and security. The road map to peace remains the way to achieve this vision, as agreed by the parties and the wider international community, and as underlined in UN Security Council resolution 1515.

Nick Gibb: Although we all know that the best option would be one involving no need for a security fence in Israel, does the Minister accept that since its construction there has been a marked decrease in terrorist attacks on Israel, and that most of the 14 suicide bombers who have been caught there in the past three months have come from the southern region of the West Bank, where there is no security fence?

Bill Rammell: I fully understand the security concerns of Israel and the Israeli Government, but I do not believe that the building of a wall or fence in occupied territories helps in this regard; nor does the impact on Palestinian communities help to take matters forward. We need movement on both sides: the Palestinian Authority must tackle terrorism, and the Israeli Government must implement their commitments under phase 1 of the road map.

Air Transport

Alistair Darling: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future of air transport.
	Today, I am publishing a White Paper that sets out the strategic framework for development for the next 30 years, against the background of wider developments in air transport. It is necessary to look ahead over a 30-year time scale. It is essential that we plan ahead to meet the pressures that we know we will face as a result of a growing economy, and in a world where people can, and will want to, travel more for business and leisure. Only the Government can provide such a framework to enable everyone to plan ahead.
	First, let me set out the context. Air travel remains crucial to our growing economy. Some 200,000 jobs depend on it directly, and some 600,000 indirectly. There has been a fivefold increase in air travel in the last 30 years; indeed, half the population flies at least once a year. The growth in passengers travelling in the low-cost, no-frills sector has been dramatic. Five years ago, just 7 million people flew on low-cost airlines; this year, we expect the number to reach 47 million. A third of the goods that we export by value go by air, and that figure is increasing. Indeed, the amount of air freight at UK airports has doubled since 1990.
	The Government recognise the benefits that the expansion of air travel has brought to people's lives and to this country's economy. Its increased affordability has opened up the possibility of travel for many people, and provides the rapid access that is essential to many modern businesses. But we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed to ensuring that, over time, aviation meets the external costs that it imposes. The White Paper sets out proposals to tackle aviation's greenhouse gas emissions by bringing it within the European Union emissions trading scheme. And the Government will continue to play a major role in seeking to develop new solutions and stronger actions by the appropriate international bodies.
	The White Paper also makes it clear that we will legislate to strengthen and clarify the powers to control noise at airports, and to allow us to direct airport operators to levy higher charges on more polluting aircraft. Similar charges in relation to noise have helped to bring about significant noise reductions at the major London airports. But we can, and will, do more to reduce both noise and air pollution.
	Some of our major airports are already close to capacity, so failure to allow for increased capacity could have serious economic consequences. But that must be balanced by the need to have regard to the environmental consequences of air travel. Simply building more and more capacity to meet demand is not sustainable. Instead, a balanced approach is required that recognises the importance of air travel to prosperity, but which seeks to reduce and to minimise the impact of airports on those living nearby and on the natural environment.
	I should also make it clear that the White Paper cannot, by itself, authorise any particular development, but it does set out a policy framework for future decisions. In the light of the White Paper it is for individual airport operators to bring forward proposals that will then be subject to the usual planning process. The White Paper sets out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity. It sets out our conclusions for every part of the country and copies will be available from the Vote Office in the usual way; and I have also written to every Member setting out our proposals in more detail.
	Let me set out the Government's conclusions. First, in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, there has been a rapid increase in air travel. We support the development of Belfast International airport within its existing boundaries to serve forecast demand. The Northern Ireland authorities should be prepared to review the planning agreement affecting traffic volumes and operational hours at Belfast City airport. They will also want to consider with the Irish Government the future of the City of Derry airport.
	In Wales, in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly Government, we have concluded that Cardiff should remain the main airport for south Wales. It has experienced rapid growth, and extra terminal capacity will be needed as well as measures to improve access to the airport by both road and public transport. We also want to see the development of centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance work both in south Wales and the west of Scotland, as well as in the north-east of England and elsewhere.
	We received proposals for a new airport in south-east Wales, but we have concluded, for the reasons set out in the White Paper, that they would not be viable. Instead, we prefer to see development at Cardiff and Bristol. Domestic air services make a major contribution to economic development, so the Welsh Assembly Government are to consider new internal services within Wales, potentially supported by public service obligations. They are also looking at setting up a route development fund, similar to the one operated by the Scottish Executive, which could support new services from Wales. We are asking some English regional development agencies to consider similar funds for regional airports.
	Because services to London airports, particularly Heathrow and Gatwick, are so important to Northern Ireland, Scotland and the south-west and north of England, we are setting out proposals for imposing public service obligations in well-defined circumstances, to protect landing slots for services that are vital to the continued economic development and prosperity of those areas.
	In Scotland, we and the Scottish Executive anticipate that additional runway capacity will be needed in the central belt, probably around 2020, so we propose to safeguard land at Edinburgh for a second runway, together with the associated expansion of terminal buildings. We also recommend that consideration be given to protecting land at Glasgow for a possible new runway; and we also support safeguarding land for terminal expansion. The Scottish Executive have published plans to improve surface access to both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The White Paper also sets out proposals that would allow for continued growth at Aberdeen, Prestwick and Inverness. We see no case for a new airport in central Scotland.
	In the north of England, we support the development of additional terminal capacity at Manchester, provided that the noise impacts from increased use of the airport are rigorously controlled. We agree that the airport at Liverpool should expand as projected and the runway be lengthened in the future, subject to the conditions set out in the White Paper. We also support plans for expansion of terminal facilities and runway extensions at Newcastle, Teesside and Leeds-Bradford.
	In the midlands, we consulted on the option of a new airport to be built between Coventry and Rugby. I can tell the House that, for reasons set out in the White Paper, we do not support developing that new airport. The Government believe that we should make the best use of existing airport facilities and support the growth of existing regional airports, given their importance to economic development and prosperity. Birmingham airport provides an important regional base for a number of airlines and has an expanding long-haul market. Traffic is set to grow, and we support the case for a second runway at Birmingham, to be built probably around 2016, subject to stringent limits on noise.
	East Midlands airport is the third largest freight airport in the United Kingdom and is rapidly establishing itself as the largest dedicated freight airport. We therefore support the projected expansion of both passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands airport. We see no need for a second runway at East Midlands, but we will keep it under review in the light of growth in freight and passenger traffic at the airport. As with other airports, we have set out proposals to establish stringent noise controls and to provide mitigation and compensation in relation to noise, and also to deal with blight.
	In the south-west, we support the development of Bristol International airport, including a runway extension and new terminal when needed. However, we do not support the option of a new airport north of Bristol. We also anticipate the need for development of more terminal facilities at Bournemouth, as well as future development at Exeter and Newquay.
	In Plymouth, the options, including the case for a new airport east of the city, need to be explored further by the local and regional authorities. Proposals for development at a number of smaller airports throughout the country are also dealt with in the White Paper.
	I now turn to the south-east of England. The issue of airport capacity in the south-east is significant for the whole of the country. Although the vast majority of travellers using the main London airports are travelling to or from the south-east, the whole of the United Kingdom depends on the range and frequency of services from those airports.
	The pressure on existing capacity is already more severe in the south-east than in the rest of the country. At the same time, it is the most densely populated part of the UK. As a result, the pressures from competing land uses and the likelihood of airport growth affecting people are greater too.
	Therefore, we must strike a balance between the undoubted importance to future prosperity and the local environmental impact of development. Again, our first priority is to make the best possible use of existing runways that will provide some much needed capacity. That is why we support proposals to make best use of the existing runways, including development to make the maximum use of a full-length single runway at Luton. However, this will not be enough to meet the pressure that will arise over the next 30 years.
	In line with the balanced approach that I have already set out, the Government believe that, over the next 30 years, there should be two new runways in the south-east. The first new runway will need to be completed within a decade, but work also needs to start on planning for a second runway, to be built probably around 2015 to 2020.
	I shall now set out our conclusions. First, we consulted on the possibility of building a new airport at Cliffe. I have concluded, taking all relevant factors into account, that we do not support an airport there.
	Stansted has seen very substantial growth in passengers in recent years. This year, it is expected to handle nearly 19 million passengers, compared with fewer than 7 million only five years ago. Despite that growth, the number of people significantly affected by noise fell by 70 per cent. between 1998 and 2002. There is likely to continue to be strong growth in demand at Stansted and, at current rates of growth, its runway capacity would be used up within a few years. A second runway at Stansted would provide very substantial runway capacity in the south-east, and generate large economic benefits. However, like any such development, it would have significant local environmental consequences.
	The local economy is already set to grow strongly. We believe that the Government's objectives for regional economic development would be complemented by an expansion of Stansted. On balance, we have therefore concluded that the first new runway in the south-east should be developed as soon as possible at Stansted airport, expected to be opening around 2011 or 2012. Surface access will need to be improved and, of course, there will need to be strict environmental controls as set out in the White Paper.
	Heathrow is the UK's major hub airport. It competes primarily with major continental airports such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris. It enables London and the south-east to compete for investment and growth. In addition, London has one of the strongest local catchment areas for international air travel in the world, especially in the finance and business services sector, which rely on global markets and good international communications. Moreover, Heathrow directly or indirectly supports nearly 100,000 jobs. It is a prime driver of the west London and the Thames valley economy.
	Without additional capacity, Heathrow's route network will tend to reduce over time, most likely to the advantage of other international hub airports in northern Europe. There is, therefore, a strong economic case for securing the large economic benefits through the addition of a new runway at Heathrow. However, at the same time, that has to be balanced against the substantial environmental impacts at Heathrow.
	Although today's jets are 75 per cent. quieter than in the 1960s, and although the number of people affected by severe noise has reduced over the years, noise impacts at Heathrow are many times worse than at other UK airports. The most difficult issue confronting expansion at Heathrow concerns how to ensure that air quality nearby is kept at acceptable levels, and to achieve compliance with the mandatory air quality limits for nitrogen dioxide that will apply from 2010.
	That is why we said last year that development at Heathrow could be considered only if the Government were confident that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits. Having considered all these matters, the Government have concluded that there is a strong case for a third runway at Heathrow, once we can be confident that that key condition in relation to compliance with air quality limits can be met. We judge that there is a substantially better prospect of achieving that condition in the 2015–20 period, provided that we take action now to tackle the nitrogen dioxide problem, which is work that should be done in any event.
	Our support is also conditional on measures to ensure that the total area within the 57 dB noise contour should not increase from last year, as well as on improvements to surface access. We will therefore institute immediately with the airport operator, and relevant bodies and agencies, a programme of action to consider how those conditions can be met to enable the addition of a third runway. For the meantime, the White Paper sets out proposals to work up measures to increase capacity at Heathrow using its existing runways, subject to further consultation and strict environmental controls.
	At Gatwick, the Government will not seek to overturn the legal agreement that prevented the construction of a second runway there before 2019. However, land will continue to be safeguarded for possible further development at Gatwick in case the conditions attached to a runway at Heathrow cannot be met. The White Paper also sets out stringent environmental conditions that we expect operators to meet and other proposals to limit and mitigate the impacts that aviation has on the environment, including its impact on global warming.
	We are setting out proposals for the development of air transport for a generation. It is essential that we plan ahead now: our future prosperity depends on it. The policies set out in the White Paper will support economic prosperity throughout the United Kingdom; will enable people to make flights at reasonable costs; and will control and mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation. I commend this statement to the House.

Theresa May: I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. This is an important day for the future of our aviation industry, and he is right that important decisions must be taken to set the framework for the industry's future if it is to continue to contribute successfully to the UK economy. But decisions taken today are also crucial for those millions of people who live close to an airport or underneath a flight path, and for the quality of our environment. A difficult balance has to be achieved between competing needs. That is why the Government's decisions need to give clarity and certainty for all involved.
	Far from setting a clear way forward for air transport in the UK, today's announcement is a fudge from an incompetent Government, which will deliver only blight to millions of people living around airports across the country. Indeed, anyone living around any of the airports in the south-east is now faced with indefinite uncertainty.
	Let us look at the Government's incompetence. They have already been forced by the courts to extend the consultation because they failed at first to include Gatwick in their proposals. The Environmental Audit Committee, noting that the airports consultation did not include a formal environmental impact assessment, went on to say:
	"We regard the absence of concise, transparent and strategic integrated appraisals as a major weakness in the consultation documents. The Department's failure in this respect conflicts with its own guidance. As a result it is impossible to assess the overall benefits of different degrees of expansion—or the relative benefits and disbenefits of regional expansion vis-à-vis expansion in the South East".
	When Birmingham Airport proposed a new short runway, the Department refused to re-issue consultation documents and include the plan in its public consultation, so the voice of local people on that proposal was not heard. Today the Secretary of State has announced precisely the proposal on which the people of the midlands were not consulted. Does he accept that the Government's failures in the consultation process now make it certain that there will be legal challenge to their decisions, thus blighting the lives of millions of people with years of further uncertainty?
	The Government's incompetence is all too clear elsewhere. The Secretary of State says that Heathrow will expand when the emissions problem is solved. But there is nothing in this statement that explains how the Government propose to solve that problem. On page 122 of the White Paper, he says that he has
	"no plans for further motorway widening"—
	in that area. He also says:
	"The solution will need to be based on improvements to public transport."
	Can he confirm that he is announcing no improvements to public transport to bring that about?
	The Eyre airports inquiries 1981–83 reported on a possible second runway at Stansted, concluding that it
	"would be an unprecedented and wholly unacceptable major environmental and visual disaster".
	Is the Secretary of State now reversing that judgment and, if so, what has changed to make him do so? [Interruption.] On page 115 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that Stansted enjoys—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are unfair to the hon. Lady. She is entitled to put her case to the House—[Interruption.] Order. The Secretary of State was heard; the hon. Lady must be heard.

Theresa May: On page 115 of the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that Stansted enjoys good transport connections by road and rail. Has he tried them recently?
	The Government support a new runway at Stansted where the growth has been in low-cost airlines, yet building the runway would mean putting up charges, thus driving away those low-cost airlines. The Government have said that commercial viability is a hurdle that must be cleared by developments on new or existing airport sites, yet the British Airports Authority has told the Government that an extra runway at Stansted would not be commercially viable without cross-subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick. BAA may well find either that it cannot fund or that it cannot afford a new runway at Stansted in the near future. Given that the Government are making expansion at Stansted a pre-requisite for expansion of capacity in the south-east, what do they propose to do if the funding is not available?
	The Government are proposing a new runway at Stansted which local people do not want, large airlines do not want to use, and low-cost airlines may not be able to afford to use. Just who will use a new runway at Stansted?
	Not only have the Government not made the proper assessments on which to base their decisions, but it is clear that their right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. At the same time as the Secretary of State for Transport is proposing a new runway at Stansted, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to build tens of thousands of new homes in the Stansted-M11 corridor. One Department says that it is okay to build a runway because there are not many people in the area, yet another Department says, "Let's put people there".
	Lack of joined-up thinking between Departments is one thing, but lack of joined-up thinking within a Department is quite another. Today, the Department for Transport announced plans to increase passenger numbers at Stansted, Birmingham, Heathrow and possibly East Midlands and Gatwick. That will need better roads and railways to get people to and from the airports, yet the same Department for Transport has made no provision for building those roads and railways.
	In Birmingham, the Department has shelved plans for an expansion of the M42—the very road that will have to take traffic to and from an expanded Birmingham airport. At peak times, the hard shoulder already has to be put into use. Getting to Birmingham by rail depends primarily on the west coast main line, yet only last week the Government shelved some of the planned improvements on that line. That is not a 10-year transport plan; it is not even a 10-day transport plan.
	We need railways before runways. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no provision was made for that work in the 10-year transport plan, that the work needed would cost a total of £30 billion and that the Strategic Rail Authority does not have the money?
	We were promised joined-up government; what we have is disjointed government. We were promised an integrated transport policy; what we have is a disintegrating transport system. We were promised decisions for the future of air transport; what we have from this incompetent Government are years of uncertainty and serious blight on the lives of millions of people.

Alistair Darling: I am sure that I cannot be the only Member of the House who wonders what Conservative policy on airports actually is. I shall not labour the point as I expect that we shall have many occasions to debate those things, but it occurs to me that if the hon. Lady is serious about being in opposition and about providing a credible alternative, she needs a policy on airport development.
	The hon. Lady said that we made fudged decisions, yet she then criticised the detail of the decisions that we announced. She cannot have it both ways. This is the first time for about 30 years that a Government have looked at the long-term requirements for air travel, covering the whole country. We held consultations and listened to what people said and then we had to take difficult decisions. As will, I suspect, become apparent in the next hour or so, the decisions are difficult and controversial.
	The hon. Lady mentioned Birmingham. I conclude from what she says that she is against expansion there, as she is against a second runway. However, looking ahead to about 2016, we believe that the airport will need a second runway to help it to develop and to help people living in the midlands who fly just as much as people elsewhere.
	It would appear that the hon. Lady is against development at Heathrow, too. I listened to what she said about motorway widening and public transport; but at least we are actually spending money on improving public transport. She is against every penny of it.
	On Stansted, it is perfectly true that in 1981 fewer than 1 million people were using the airport. Even five years ago, only 7 million people were using it, but this year it will handle 19 million passengers. Anyone who has ever been to Stansted, and I have been there by both road and rail—incidentally, we have just finished major improvement of the road into Stansted airport—will know that the airport is extremely crowded. That brings us to the nub of the hon. Lady's problem, which is, indeed, a problem that we must all face up to. Of course, increased air travel has environmental consequences, especially for people living close to airports; but at the same time, her constituents, my constituents—all our constituents—are, because of their increasing prosperity, choosing to fly more.
	I do not say that we should meet all that demand—indeed, we are proposing less than is actually needed according to some views—but we cannot have a situation in which the Government take the easy option, as successive Governments have done in the past, of doing absolutely nothing and hoping for the best. The decisions are difficult and, yes, I have no doubt that there will be legal challenges—lawyers up and down the country will be rubbing their hands even as I speak—but it is the job of the Government to make decisions and to set out a clear strategy for the next generation. That is what we have done.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for letting me have an advance copy of the statement.
	The aviation industry is an important and successful contributor to the British economy, both in its own right and as a key driver of economic growth. However, we live in an age where we all accept that the commercial imperative must be balanced against environmental costs and social disruption. I therefore give the statement a very cautious welcome, albeit with considerable reservations, because it accepts that approach. I welcome the recognition of the importance of regional airports, especially their ability to take some of the load from the south-east and to help to manage demand.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government's commitment to ensuring that aviation meets its external costs, but will he tell us what "over time" means? Are the Government actively working to achieve that aim and when will the Secretary of State set a target date for its achievement? Will he also confirm his acceptance of the polluter pays principle with higher charges for aircraft that pollute more? What is he doing to extend the principle? For example, what is he doing to promote aviation fuel tax, as opposed to air passenger duty? That duty on passengers is equivalent to approximately 10p in aviation tax, yet it provides no incentive for operators to improve environmental performance.
	I welcome the announcement that there is to be no airport at Cliffe, although as that was always a non-starter, I suspect that the proposal was a red herring to divert the attention of the environmental lobby. Does he accept our welcome for his statement that simply building more capacity to meet demand is not sustainable? I hope that he will confirm that that commits predict and provide as a policy to the dustbin.
	As the Secretary of State said, it is necessary to plan ahead over a 30-year time scale, but has he not missed an opportunity to consider the long-term vision across all modes, particularly with regard to high-speed rail links? Does he accept that the growth in budget airlines is unsustainable and that the budget airline model is fatally flawed until such time as its costs are properly externalised?
	Finally, on Heathrow, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that no development will be entertained until a sustainable environmental case has been made? Does he accept that further noise and pollution cannot be imposed on long-suffering residents of the surrounding area? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) would have made that point had she not been giving the eulogy at a funeral as we speak. Will the Government accept that more could and should be done to manage demand as the essential tool for achieving sustainable growth for our aviation industry?

Alistair Darling: It would have been helpful—although perhaps it is not surprising in the case of the Liberals—if the hon. Gentleman too had a policy for dealing with the problem. The Liberals are in favour of air travel but not airports.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about regional airports, which are important. On airports in the south-east, it is worth bearing it in mind that about 80 per cent. of people travelling to and from them live in the south-east, so many of their customers are local. He is right that airports outside the south-east are important. That is why we support development at Birmingham, for example, because if people can fly from Birmingham and not London, that will take some of the pressure off London airports.
	I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about aviation meeting its costs, which I mentioned in my statement. The polluter pays principle applies to aviation as much as it does to any other sector, but, as he ought to know, aviation fuel taxation is governed by international treaties. The Government have been arguing for some time that aviation ought to meet its costs, and we will continue to do so. Some of the measures that I announced today, such as giving power to airport operators to charge higher landing fees for more polluting aircraft, will be an incentive to airlines to clean up engines. I agree that predict and provide is complete nonsense—bearing it in mind that runways will be built by commercial operators and no one will build a runway on spec, just in case—and it has never been a policy that I have supported.
	On rail links, the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point. The channel tunnel rail link has carried 1 million passengers since the first high-speed line was opened in September—thanks to us rescuing it in 1998—and the CTRL now has more than half the travel market between London and Paris. That is an example of how it can help. He should be clear about managing demand, about which we may hear more. I am clear that, over time, aviation must meet its costs like any other sector, but when people talk about managing demand, in many ways they are talking about pricing people off aeroplanes. In that regard, he is getting himself into tricky waters, unless he proposes to march down the check-in queue at Inverness airport saying to people, "I can fly, but you can't."

John McDonnell: This is the first time in 25 years of representing my constituents at local or central Government level that any Government have said no to the automatic expansion of Heathrow airport that has been demanded by the aviation industry. I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Many of my constituents will feel that we have won a decisive battle but not the war. What mechanism will he put in place to ensure the independent assessment of any aviation industry claims that it may have met the environmental conditions that he set out today for further expansion at Heathrow? What process does he envisage for undertaking the review of alternation at Heathrow?

Alistair Darling: There are two points in that. My hon. Friend will know that, following the terminal 5 inquiry, the airport operator, BAA, is already obliged to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels, and that work is in hand to do that. In relation to our evaluation methods, the Department uses a model that is widely accepted as accurate. In any planning inquiry—one would have to take place on a third runway at Heathrow—all the arguments and counter-arguments would be fully tested and explored.
	I note my hon. Friend's comments, for which I am grateful, but there is a difficult balance to be struck at Heathrow. Clearly, there are big environmental problems, which is why I do not believe that we can authorise a third runway there now. He will be acutely aware, as a west London Member, that Heathrow dominates the west London economy and is critical to the whole of UK aviation. That is why it is a difficult decision. In contrast to what the Opposition said, I believe that the Government must face up to such decisions and take them.

Mark Prisk: The decision to build at Stansted before Heathrow is perverse and will prove unworkable. It will be bad for aviation, bad for the country and bad for the environment. Given that, in 1985, the Government's own inspector concluded that a second runway at Stansted would, to use his words, be an environmental catastrophe, on what evidence is the Secretary of State now reversing that judgment?

Alistair Darling: In 1985, Stansted was used by a very small number of people, and I do not suppose that the inspector, Mr. Eyre, could possibly have foreseen that Stansted would this year handle 19 million passengers—[Interruption.] Hold on. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he knows Stansted airport, that the rise in use of that airport has been dramatic. When I made my statement, I told the House that, looking at the south-east of England, over the next 30 years, it needs two runways. Work needs to start on one now, as, on any view, it would be the end of the decade before the runway was available, and work also needs to start on the second one. If we do not do that, we will end up with increasing pressure to fly that we simply cannot meet. I remind the House that, if only Governments 20 years ago had had the sense to realise the pressures on our road and railway system, we would not have some of the problems that we have today. We need to plan ahead, and if he asks what the grounds are, they are set out in the White Paper.

Irene Adams: I congratulate the Secretary of State on having the courage to take the long-term view on aviation. In relation to central Scotland, however, he proposes to safeguard land at Edinburgh airport for future runway and terminal expansion but only recommends that consideration be given to the same at Glasgow. That flies in the face of evidence taken from the CBI, Scottish business, BAA and anyone who was consulted on it. Can he tell me what the terms of that consideration will be? Who will make that consideration, and what is its likely time scale?

Alistair Darling: The position in relation to Glasgow is that Renfrew council, the local planning authority, will be asked to safeguard land for a possible second runway there. In the central belt of Scotland, there will be a need for one additional runway. All the evidence is that pressures will arise at both Edinburgh and Glasgow. On Glasgow, it has become evident since we started consulting that the use of Prestwick has increased dramatically, and that, in effect, the west of Scotland already has two runways, because Prestwick airport is taking traffic away from Glasgow. Whether Glasgow needs a second runway—we are talking about 2020—we do not know. It is sensible to safeguard development there because it would be foolish to rule it out. In any event, terminal development will be needed at Glasgow because its traffic is likely to grow.
	All the signs are that the pressure on Edinburgh airport, which has increased dramatically in the last few years, will grow and grow. Clearly, BAA, which owns both airports, will have to decide what it wants to do. We have arranged in the White Paper that there is facility for expansion at both airports. I do not believe that we need two runways in the centre of Scotland—there is no justification for that—but we do need one. The position in Glasgow is being safeguarded, but what is happening with Prestwick and Glasgow means that there are effectively two runways operating in the west of Scotland now. That was not the case even four or five years ago.

Peter Ainsworth: The one thing that we were entitled to expect out of this lengthy and painful process was an end to doubt. Does the Secretary of State realise that he has produced a recipe for confusion and blight? What does he have to say to my constituents near Gatwick who will now not know for possibly a decade whether the airport will be expanded? If he has made a decision about Redhill aerodrome, I would be grateful to hear it because he appears to have ducked and dodged decisions on almost everything else.

Alistair Darling: I will forgive the hon. Gentleman because he cannot possibly have read the whole White Paper in the 40 minutes that it has been available. He will find that the Government do not think that Redhill should be expanded.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that land to the south of the existing runway at Gatwick has been safeguarded for some time. That safeguarding must be continued and amended slightly in case there is development, but I made it clear right from the start that I did not think that the 2019 agreement should be overturned, and I confirmed that today. That is pretty certain.

Candy Atherton: How much extra protection will be provided for the residents of Devon and Cornwall by today's announcement, given the economic importance of air links to Newquay and Plymouth?

Alistair Darling: I think that my hon. Friend is asking about PSOs—public service obligations—and as I said in my statement, the White Paper sets out the fact that the Government are prepared to step in to safeguard routes from the parts of the United Kingdom, including south-west England, that are further away from London.

Francis Maude: It is disappointing that the Government have ruled out the long-term serious option of building new airport capacity on the coast, which is happening in most countries where that possibility exists. I am doubly disappointed that they have not removed the blight and uncertainty from any of the existing London airports—in fact, the problem is being compounded. Although the decision not to overturn the 2019 agreement on Gatwick is welcome, how long will it be before the Heathrow issue is resolved? Our constituents in West Sussex need the land that is being safeguarded for the housing that is being imposed on West Sussex by the Deputy Prime Minister. How long will it be before the uncertainty can be resolved?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is not exactly clear whether he wants the housing or not—I rather get the impression that he does not. He will know that the land is safeguarded now, that it has been safeguarded for some time and that it will continue to be safeguarded. I am grateful to him for welcoming the fact that we are not going to overturn the 2019 agreement, which would have been wrong. We have examined proposals for the development of coastal and estuarial airports, but, for the reasons set out in the White Paper, we do not think that we can proceed with them.

Alan Hurst: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that I am one lawyer who is not rubbing his hands with glee at today's announcement about Stansted. He will be aware of the disappointment and dread caused by the announcement of the expansion. He has already indicated that he is aware of the findings of the public inquiry, which unreservedly damned any second runway. What assessment has he made of the potential profitability of Stansted with a second runway without cross-subsidy from Gatwick and Heathrow?

Alistair Darling: As with any airport development, the private operator must finance airport construction, and, in the case of Stansted, BAA must make such a commercial judgment. I understand that it will say something further in the next few days, but it must decide whether it thinks the figures stack up commercially, and the Government will not step in and do that for it.
	On my hon. Friend's first point, I accept what was the case in 1985, but aviation has changed dramatically in the past few years. As I said to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), even five years ago Stansted had very little traffic; now 19 million people use it. I also repeat the point that, after examining the south-east as a whole—one must examine it as a whole—one sees that it needs two runways in the 30-year period. For the reasons that we have set out, our judgment is that the first runway ought to be at Stansted and the second at Heathrow, provided that Heathrow can meet the conditions that we have set out.

Oliver Heald: Mr. Speaker, your Deputy, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), and his constituents have, like mine, fought tirelessly against the Stansted expansion. Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision will cause great misery in Essex and east Hertfordshire? How can he explain it to my constituents? It is not a commercial decision—the airlines and BAA have made that clear. It is not an environmental decision—the expansion was described as a catastrophe by the last inspector to examine it—and there is nobody to pay for the infrastructure. Who will pay for the necessary roads and railway links? He gives no answer. It is not good enough for him to talk about the new slip road because that was promised 10 years ago and it is just a catch-up.

Alistair Darling: The airport will be a commercial decision because BAA is responsible for financing and building it. The Civil Aviation Authority regulates cross-subsidy and similar issues between the London airports. I know what was said in 1985, but I have said to the hon. Gentleman and other Members that a lot has changed in the past 20 years. On surface access, the Government have a responsibility for both road and rail.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a general point, which we shall return to time and time again, about what he should say to all his constituents. We must balance the fact that airport development has an environmental impact with the fact that more and more of us, including his constituents, are flying more. Such problems are difficult. When I started this process and said that we must press ahead, my senior officials told me that all my predecessors had backed off because the issue is difficult. I can well see why previous Secretaries of State have run a mile from this issue, but I would have been shirking my duty if I had not faced up to the difficulties and set out firm proposals to enable people to plan ahead.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The whole House will share with the Secretary of State the much-guarded secret of the expansion of airports in the south-east and welcome the expansion of the regional airports in particular. The reality is that those airports will require flights into Heathrow, which they regard as their lifeline. How will they be protected, will the passenger service obligations be used to ensure that they can fly to Heathrow and what estimate has he made of the cost of not developing Heathrow in the next 10 years? The commercial loss of business to continental airports will be very large. Would he like to tell us what it will be?

Alistair Darling: First, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about regional airports. I note that she has been entirely consistent because in 1985, which was the last time a Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and said anything about airport development, she said the same thing, and she is absolutely right.
	The position on Heathrow is that, because of the mandatory requirements relating to nitrogen dioxide, we could not now authorise, approve or support the building of a third runway there. It is clear that, at the moment, a third runway would breach the mandatory NO2 requirements, which is why we believe that work should start on reducing NO2. It should start anyway because we should do everything that we can to reduce it. However, we should keep open the possibility for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend set out and supports. I made it clear earlier that a third runway at Heathrow could be built provided that we can overcome the problems with air pollution. It would have been wrong for the Government to have said, "Yes, just go ahead now", while ignoring the environmental problems that undoubtedly exist at Heathrow.
	On my hon. Friend's general point, nobody should be under any illusions: Heathrow is vital not only to the UK but internationally. It is one of the world's leading airports, which is why, no matter what the difficulties, we must do our level best to resolve those problems.

David Wilshire: Does the Secretary of State accept that, on Heathrow, "wait and see" is the worst possible answer? My constituents want someone with the courage to say yes or no now. If he were to say yes, he would please just over half my constituents and if he said no, he would satisfy the rest, but instead he will upset them all, especially if he pursues the argument on runway alternation. Uncertainty on Heathrow is bad news. Those who believe that a new runway would safeguard their jobs will worry about redundancy and those who paid a high price for their house will worry that property values might fall. Those who want a better environment will wonder whether they will ever get it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to speak, so they should ask only one question.

Alistair Darling: I am not sure which side of the great argument the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is on. The White Paper says unequivocally that the Government will support the development of a third runway at Heathrow once we are satisfied that it could meet our environmental obligations. That seems pretty clear to me.

Dennis Turner: Speaking on behalf of the 42 members of the west midlands regional Labour parliamentary group, I congratulate the Secretary of State on his firm rejection of a new airport in Rugby, which we opposed unanimously during the consultation. I warmly welcome his decision on Birmingham International airport because the group believes that that will assist the region to meet demand more locally, to generate benefits for economic development and to minimise environmental impact. Will he acknowledge our thanks from the west midlands and may I wish him a happy Christmas?

Alistair Darling: Let me see if I can answer that difficult question. I think that I find myself in total agreement with my hon. Friend.

John Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that his proposal for Birmingham airport was not one of the four options on which my constituents were consulted? The consultation was therefore a sham and an insult to them, and the decision will be challenged.

Alistair Darling: As I said earlier, I am sure that there would have been the possibility of legal challenges up and down the country whatever we did, so we have to accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the expansion of Birmingham airport will be required at some point in the long-term interest of the west midlands and Birmingham itself. It will probably need a second runway some time after 2016, so the questions will be where that should be and what should be proposed. The proposal that we are prepared to support has the advantage that it suggests a shorter runway than that originally proposed.

John Taylor: It was not one of the options.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. The proposal represents a better solution, and surely we must all be in the business of providing better solutions for our constituents. If something better is on offer, that is worth looking at.

Dave Watts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for regional services to Heathrow. He knows that many regional airports have lost their links, so will he consider how to restore links to airports such as Liverpool?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I am aware of that. The Government's first preference is for all services to be provided on a commercial basis because that represents the best way of ensuring their long-term success. As I said earlier, the Government will consider using PSOs, and the White Paper sets out the criteria under which we would decide whether they would be necessary.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on Belfast's airports but may I press him again on Heathrow, because we all recognise its importance? How much of the air quality pollution at Heathrow is due to long taxiing and the fact that planes must fly around for half an hour waiting for a slot?

Alistair Darling: There is no doubt that taxiing, aircraft circling Heathrow and aircraft having to wait a long time to take off contribute to pollution, but they are not the major source of the problem. There is an argument that additional runway capacity would mean that there might be less need for aircraft to run their engines when not taking off, but most of the pollution comes from the airfield itself and associated traffic movement around Heathrow. That is why we need to do more not only to get cleaner engines but to improve public transport links to Heathrow. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) criticised me for not widening the M25 further, but I do not think that it could be widened much further there—for all I know, that is her policy. We must ensure that we bear down on pollution on all fronts, but we should do that anyway for the good of people living in west London.

David Marshall: I welcome today's deliberate and sensible statement, especially the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow eventually. May I urge the Secretary of State not to allow any slippage and to ensure that the runway is built as soon as the conditions laid down are met, otherwise the UK as a whole will lose out further to Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol as a result of Heathrow's limitations? I also welcome the protection of slots at Heathrow for Anglo-Scottish services, but will he assure the House that any final decisions on Edinburgh and Glasgow airports will be made on the basis of an absolutely level playing field?

Alistair Darling: Certainly, on the last point, yes. The point that my hon. Friend makes about links between the airports and London is important, so I am sure that he and others will welcome the fact that BMI British Midland yesterday announced a direct flight from Heathrow to Inverness, which British Airways took out of service several years ago, and more flights to Aberdeen. He is right about the risks relating to Heathrow. We have set out our proposals in the White Paper. People have every right to make their views heard on the planning process but I hope that we can make progress quickly for once in this country because otherwise we will pay a heavy price. That has happened with other transport modes, so I do not want it to happen on this matter.

John Maples: I do not know whether the Secretary of State's decisions about Stansted and Heathrow are right, but he has certainly got the decision on Rugby right. Many of my constituents will be absolutely delighted that the proposal will not be imposed on them, because it would have ruined many aspects of their lives. May I tell him that all of us want a major international airport close to where we live, but not too close, so Birmingham will do just fine?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree with him.

Alan Howarth: If evidence emerges to show that the increase in capacity foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend today is insufficient to meet demand for long-haul passenger and cargo traffic, will the Government be willing after all to examine open-mindedly and seriously—without prejudice to the outcome—the benefits for aviation, the economy and the environment of creating a new international airport in south-east Wales complementary to the regional role of Cardiff airport?

Alistair Darling: We looked at the two proposals on south-east Wales and, as I said in my statement, the Government did not feel able to support them for the reasons that are fully set out in the White Paper. The White Paper sets out our view of what is necessary and it would be a trifle premature for me to revisit it only an hour after making my statement. I understand my right hon. Friend's point about development at Llanwern but, based on the information that we have, it is not a realistic option.

Eric Pickles: The Secretary of State made much play of the economic advantage of air travel and of the numbers at Stansted. Surely the growth at Stansted is due to point-to-point travel and highly subsidised flights. Are we really going to tear up two public inquiries and a royal commission to preserve the economic importance of £7 flights to Prague or Eindhoven? Surely the economic case could be made for a hub operation in the United Kingdom. Given the difficulty that was experienced with establishing a hub at Gatwick, what makes him think that Stansted would be able to cope? Surely it is more likely that British Airways will decide to move many of its operations to Charles de Gaulle.

Alistair Darling: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we do not "highly subsidise" airlines. It is interesting that a Conservative Member should criticise the entrepreneurial flair shown by airport operators, and even more surprising that he should call for higher taxation for his constituents. We note that point and no doubt will return to it often.
	There is a lot of point-to-point flying at Stansted, but it is increasingly being used as a low-cost hub, with people flying to it and then flying on to other places. I have made my position clear. South-east England needs two runways. The first should be at Stansted for the reasons stated in the White Paper. We also need to consider Heathrow, again for the reasons that we stated.

Ann Keen: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for taking note of the environmental impact that a third runway would have on my constituents. I acknowledge the work that campaigning groups, in particular the London borough of Hounslow, have done on that. Does he agree that we need to consider the noise impact on schools in the London borough of Hounslow? I would appreciate it if he could meet me to consider ways in which BAA can assist those schools.

Alistair Darling: My colleagues and I have always made it clear that we are happy to meet our colleagues on both sides of the House. That remains the case and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, who has already expressed her concerns to me about the environmental impact on the area surrounding Heathrow. She recognises that there is a difficult balance to be struck between the importance of Heathrow to her constituents as an employer and economic driver, and the environmental impacts. She has also raised with me the problem of noise, especially as it affects schools and hospitals. Proposals are set out in the White Paper and we are due to consult generally next year on the noise regime at Heathrow.

Pete Wishart: I welcome the announcement that no one Scottish airport will be favoured over any other, but surely many Scottish air services, especially those that go beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, will be dumped at Stansted. What reassurances has the Secretary of State received that that will not be the case?

Alistair Darling: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not use the term "dumped". The last time I was at Stansted, many of our fellow countrymen seemed only too happy to be there, not necessarily because they were bound for Essex, but because they were bound for sunnier climates.
	The hon. Gentleman would have been better off making a point on PSOs. He will know from his constituency that there is concern about those. The Government have set out proposals to ensure that there are maintained links and adequate levels of supply between the north and the west so that people there can get access into the London airports. I am seized of that point, but the hon. Gentleman should be cautious in what he says about Stansted. I know he and his colleagues have a problem with things south of the border, but they are not all bad.

Lynne Jones: What are the Government doing to bring about international agreements on the liberalisation of long-haul traffic to reduce the number of unnecessary international connecting flights, which constitute a large proportion of the throughput at Heathrow airport? Although my right hon. Friend is correct in saying that the taxation regime on aviation fuel for international journeys is subject to international agreement, that is not the case for domestic flights. Will he consider imposing a taxation regime to raise the revenue stream to enable much bigger investment into high-speed rail links?

Alistair Darling: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to liberalising markets. I had not realised that that was where she was coming from. I am slightly taken aback, but I think we can all agree on that approach.
	The Government are supporting talks between the European Union and the United States to get a genuine open skies agreement across the Atlantic, because that would be hugely beneficial for people on both sides of the ocean. I suspect, however, that it will take time.
	My hon. Friend is right that fuel taxation is dealt with by international treaty. We are taking a lead in trying to ensure that aviation does, over time, meet its costs. On domestic flights, my hon. Friend is right up to a point. We charge air passenger duty, for instance, which brings in about £900 million. However, she is no doubt aware that if we acted unilaterally, airlines would go to a more benign regime, from their perspective, to fill up their aircraft and come back. I am not sure that that would be a desirable outcome.

John Randall: The Secretary of State said that the proposals are for a generation, but for those of us living under the shadow of Heathrow, they will be a blight on another generation. Does he agree that the air quality limits will probably be more stringent in 2015? Will the amber light that he gave to a third runway at Heathrow be for a short runway, as suggested in the consultation, or will it be for something else?

Alistair Darling: It is for a shorter runway. During the consultation process, BAA produced proposals to ensure that the runway does not take as much land as originally planned. On Heathrow itself, more stringent environmental conditions may be in place in future, but I do not know what they will be. I do, however, know what they are for 2010, which is why we have to be cautious.
	Like many MPs who represent areas around Heathrow, the hon. Gentleman has to balance the environmental impact with the fact that Heathrow is the major employer in west London. The prosperity of west London and the Thames valley depends on it. Given that Heathrow is in competition with Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, we must do everything we can to ensure that that airport continues to compete in the future. It is a difficult balance to strike, but we have tried to strike it. I appreciate that the decision will be controversial, but we are doing the right thing both on the environmental front and with regard to the future economy of west London.

Sandra Osborne: I thank the Secretary of State for listening and for recognising so clearly that Glasgow has two airports, one of which is Glasgow Prestwick international airport, which has spare capacity that can and should be utilised. I also welcome his comments on aircraft maintenance. He knows that that is creating many jobs in my constituency and I hope that it will create many more in the future. Has he given consideration in the White Paper to the important role of freight at Glasgow Prestwick international airport?

Alistair Darling: On the last point, I have considered freight. My hon. Friend will know that there has been substantial growth in freight transport at Glasgow, Prestwick and Edinburgh. The three Scottish airports are developing quite a big freight trade.
	My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to something that is a problem on the west coast for some of our colleagues. The west of Scotland already has two runways, which is why I said what I did about Glasgow airport to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). There is no doubt that part of Prestwick's increased traffic is coming out of Glasgow airport. We have to face up to that. It is a quite good thing. My hon. Friend's work, and that of others, in promoting Prestwick has been worth while. The House will remember that not so long ago Prestwick was threatened with closure. It is now doing very well, although the strength of its case has resulted in its being a genuine second west and central Scotland runway.

Norman Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement on Gatwick, which will be popular in my part of the world. He also mentioned a big expansion of air travel in the UK. On the anticipated effect of his proposals on greenhouse gas emissions, he will know that emissions were expected to double between 1990 and 2010 and, before long, 25 per cent. of CO2 emissions will be from air travel. Will CO2 emissions go up or down as a consequence of his proposals? He says that he wants to ensure that the full environmental costs are met over time. Why is that time not now? What time scale is he applying? Why have the discussion proposals in the aviation and environment paper of March 2003 been kicked into touch for the foreseeable future, on page 41 of the White Paper?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the international discussions, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when they will be finalised because they depend on international agreement. In common with just about every other country in the world, we are signatories to the convention and have to reach international agreement. In relation to reducing emissions, I said that we will make it a priority in our presidency of the European Union to bring aviation within the European emissions trading scheme. That will be a significant help. I also said that we will introduce legislation to enable airport operators to impose higher charges for the more polluting aircraft. That will help as well. It has helped with noise already in the London airports. A number of things are being done that I think will reduce aircraft emissions.
	The hon. Gentleman and others are right that we must balance the need to ensure that people can travel, because our economy will depend upon it, and the need to ensure that we are alive to the environmental consequences.

Andy King: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear and categoric statement in the White Paper, at page 92 of which he clearly acknowledges that full account has been taken of the almost uniform opposition to the proposal for a new airport at Rugby, as well as a number of concerns raised in the consultation document. In addition, he refined the options during the consultation, taking into account the concerns of the people of Birmingham. We thank him for his support of Birmingham airport as well. Will he say once again that the Government rule out once and for all the option of that new hub airport in the midlands? Thank you.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. I do not think that I could have made the position any more clear than I did in my statement. I know that he has worked tirelessly against the proposal. Having examined all the evidence and having considered what people had to say, I am clear that the right thing to do was to ensure that we allowed for expansion in the west midlands, but that it should be at Birmingham.

Anthony Steen: Is the Secretary of State aware that his thought-provoking statement deals with making better use of runway space at Heathrow—not building a new runway but perhaps opting for mixed-mode use, pioneered by British Midland in 1990, which will give much more opportunity for airlines to land without the building of a new runway? Is that what he is proposing in his White Paper? Will he confirm that he will not allow cross-subsidisy from Heathrow to Stansted to finance what Stansted wants to do? Will he ensure that BAA opens to competition any new building of terminals?

Alistair Darling: Cross-subsidy is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which regulates these matters. On the mixed-mode operation at Heathrow, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that there is a limit on air traffic movements. If mixed mode were to be pursued and if the limit were to be breached, there would have to be consultation. I think that a limit was laid down of 480,000 movements. Mixed mode, depending on whether it was peak hour or all the time, would have an impact on that. It would need to be discussed.

Alan Keen: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for embarking on a planning exercise. It is a long time since a major industry saw Government involvement in planning. May I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to my constituents, and remind him that there were no page numbers for the Opposition spokesman to quote last time there was a major expansion at Heathrow because there was no Government involvement, no planning and no consultation? I much appreciate what my right hon. Friend has done this time.
	If there is any thought of mixed mode at Heathrow airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to listen to us before deciding to use the northern runway for take-offs to the east for the 25 per cent. of the time that takes place. The Cranford agreement has prevented that for the past 30 to 35 years. It is unacceptable for my constituents in Cranford to have planes taking off over the top of them when they are so close to the end of the runway.

Alistair Darling: As I was saying to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) a few moments ago, partly because mixed mode may well result in an increase in aircraft movements, it will be necessary to consult. I am also aware of the Cranford agreement, which has been in place for a long time. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He, like many others, has made representations arising from his concern about the environmental impact. I welcome what he said about the importance of the Government being clear as to where they stand—who knows, we might one day find out where others stand.

Crispin Blunt: I thank the Secretary of State for his unequivocal rejection of Redhill and the claims made for it by the promoters, including the claim that local people were indifferent. Is he aware that that means that I shall not have to pass on to him 6,000 letters, on behalf of about 10,000 of my constituents, which are sitting in my office as part of the consultation process?
	May I ask the Secretary of State about the position of Gatwick as the reserve if development at Heathrow cannot go ahead? Has he not opened up the possibility that he will end up with three two-runway London airports as the end product if development at Heathrow is not possible? Will he answer two specific questions? Would it not have been better for that reserve position to be a third runway at Stansted, given that he will in any case have to build the infrastructure to get a second runway at Stansted? Secondly, how long will the people around Gatwick have to wait before they know whether a third runway at Heathrow is feasible?

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman had had a mirror he would have been fascinated to see the expressions of some of his colleagues sitting behind him. No, we do not think that there should be a third runway at Stansted. As for Gatwick, our position is that we think that in the south-east of England over the next 30 years there needs to be two new runways. That remains our position. In relation to Redhill, I will be extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he keeps the 6,000 letters. I think I speak on behalf of my staff at the Department for Transport when I say that they will be even more grateful than me, given that they have already dealt with many thousands of letters. If the hon. Gentleman can see his way to storing the 6,000 letters in his office, I think my staff will be very grateful.

Points of Order

Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week I tabled a series of written questions, four to the Ministry of Defence and five to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all of them on specific issues that had been raised by my constituents. They were all due to be answered under the named-day procedure on Monday 15 December. Eight of the nine questions came back with the answer "I will answer shortly." Many of them do not involve particularly complicated issues. Bearing in mind the fact that the House is due to rise in two days' time, can you tell me what action I can take as a Back Bencher to pursue these legitimate concerns on my constituents' behalf?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can only advise the hon. Gentleman that his point will have been heard and will be on the record. It is to be hoped that the Minister will be able to respond.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will know, I am not one who likes in any way to imply criticism of the Chair. However, we have just had a lengthy statement that affects Members in many parts of the country, and there has not been a proper geographical balance in the Members who have been called. I would hope that that could be recorded.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Certainly.

Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 24,000 individual letters were sent to Members from the Halfpenny Green or Wolverhampton business airport in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). No Member from the area was called following the statement, although many of them were standing. Can we not have a future statement on the matter?

Peter Lilley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that Luton, the first airport in the south-east to which the Secretary of State referred, is the only one that will involve immediate expansion, also the only one that involves approval of a proposal that was not consulted on during the consultation period, it struck me as strange that no Member from that area was called, and that the issue of Luton was not raised. I wonder whether it will be possible to extend at an early date the discussion that has just been terminated.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I realise the importance of the White Paper to many right hon. and hon. Members, but the occupant of the Chair has to protect the rest of the business of the day. There are times when perhaps the Chair will disappoint certain Members. We must protect the business of the day. There will be other opportunities to discuss the points made.

Orders of the Day

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Additional provisions in respect of postal voting

'Before making any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the manner in which the election is conducted (which may or may not be modified by pilot orders under section 2) ensures that—
	(a) all ballot papers returned are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification;
	(b) each elector who has returned a ballot paper is given an acknowledgement by the returning officer;
	(c) in the event of any disruption of postal services on any day or days appointed for voting under the pilot order, alternative collection points for ballot papers are available, and are in any case available and accessible to those who prefer to deliver their ballot papers in person; and
	(d) any recommendation or recommendations of the Electoral Commission to reduce the incidence or possibility of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice are given effect.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5—Additional provisions in respect of postal voting (No.2)—
	'(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements for the ballot.
	(2) The Secretary of State must place a copy of each statement made in pursuance of subsection (1) in the Library of the House of Commons not less than two months before the election.'.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
	'(2A) In the case of all-postal ballots, the Electoral Commission must consult with the postal authorities involved concerning the efficacy of the arrangements.'.

David Heath: The first group includes new clause 2 which, I am pleased to say, was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers and myself. It deals, first, with the important matter of fraud in an all-postal ballot and, secondly, with the conduct of the postal authorities and their ability to cope with the burden that will be placed on them.
	New clause 2 deals with fraud, which has been a major concern throughout our consideration of the Bill. Some people would say that the postal ballot system is inherently more open to electoral fraud and malpractice than the practice of attending a polling station and casting a vote in person. Indeed, there is evidence, albeit limited, to support that contention. The matter has certainly exercised the Electoral Reform Society, to which I pay tribute for the attention that it has given the Bill and its helpful briefings.

Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: It is very early in my speech, but certainly.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman said that there is evidence of fraud, but could he be more specific? I am certainly not aware of evidence of any fraud in the successful pilots in my own part of the country. People are concerned about fraud, but we need to be specific about it.

David Heath: The right hon. Lady may wish to read the new report by the Electoral Commission on these matters. It is a simple fact that there have been more prosecutions for fraud—this is not necessarily the case in the all-postal ballot pilots—among people who cast a postal vote than among people who use the ballot box. That does not mean that there is an inherently significant problem with postal voting, but it suggests that precautions should be put in place. Indeed, the first report by the Electoral Commission on the arrangements for postal voting deals extensively with the opportunity for electoral fraud in postal voting, and makes sensible recommendations about ways in which to deal with the problem. Some of those recommendations cannot be implemented without primary legislation, and new clause 2 is an appropriate vehicle to introduce such proposals when the pilot schemes take place.
	In previous discussions on the Bill, we drew attention to the rushed conditions in which such proposals would be introduced. Nevertheless, my supporters—prominent among them the ERS—and I believe that we should introduce more detailed proposals to avoid fraud in an all-postal ballot. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) is somewhat complacent about this matter. That is not being unkind to him, as he said in Committee:
	"there are sufficient anti-fraud measures within electoral law to ensure that postal voting can be undertaken with confidence and . . . it is no more prone to fraud than conventional voting methods." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 November 2003; c. 130.]
	We disagree, and the Electoral Commission's proposals should be implemented at the earliest opportunity. They should certainly be implemented before a widespread trial of all-postal voting.
	Many Members have drawn attention to the problem of ensuring that the postal ballot is not abused by people living in houses in multiple occupation. It can be abused in a number of ways, including personation. The Minister included welcome proposals in the Bill to define the offence of personation, but they do not entirely answer our concerns. The hon. Gentleman hinted in Committee that he would consider delivery of ballot papers by hand to houses in multiple occupation, to mitigate the risks of votes being harvested. He may wish to tell us how far he has considered the problem and whether he intends to amend the Bill in due course, or to introduce regulations to deal with a matter that we believe should be included in the Bill.
	A basic problem with postal ballots is that it is far more difficult to secure a secret ballot. For a century or more, the secret ballot has been a bulwark against much electoral malpractice. We all accept the facility and utility of postal votes, but they are more open to abuse because they cannot be secret in the same way as polling station ballots, where only one person is permitted to enter the polling booth at a time. The defences against abuse are therefore much stronger at polling stations. There is a particular problem for people with disabilities. Sadly, in our debate we will not have the opportunity properly to consider their position, but one of their principal concerns about the introduction of all-postal ballots is that there will effectively be no secret ballot for them any more. We should be concerned about that.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman made a valid point about disabled voters' right to secrecy, but is it not the case that, under current arrangements, disabled people already have to forfeit their right to privacy if their polling station does not have disabled access, because they cannot enter it? The option of voting at home will in fact increase their privacy when casting their vote.

David Heath: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Polling stations should be accessible to people with disabilities, but sadly some are not. It is normal practice for returning officers to take ballot papers to people whose physical disabilities hinder their mobility, allowing them to cast their vote with whatever secrecy is available in the circumstances. The returning officers then return the ballot papers to the presiding officer at the polling station. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold true for people with visual impairment. I have a particular interest in the issue, and systems are, or should be, available, such as templates and so on, to enable people with visual impairment to cast their vote in secrecy. Such arrangements are simply not available in an all-postal ballot.
	My views are shared by the Local Government Association. I ought to declare an interest, although I am not absolutely certain whether I still am an honorary vice-president of the LGA. Like many hon. Members, I was certainly asked to accept such a position, but I am not sure whether my vice-presidency has lapsed. If I am still a vice-president, I declare my interest. The LGA drew attention in its representations to the problem of fraud and believes that
	"there should be a balance between greater accessibility to voting with security and prevention of fraud."
	The association went on to say that it does not believe that
	"all-postal ballots should be rolled out on a mandatory basis to all councils without the Commission's additional recommendations—in particular a move from household to individual registration—being in place."
	That is a significant contribution to the debate, as it effectively comes from the returning officers themselves, as they are represented by the LGA. They acknowledge the difficulties arising from all-postal voting.

John Pugh: As my hon. Friend will recognise, there is not only a potential problem of fraud, but a problem in assessing the extent of the fraud. Would he be surprised to learn that I asked a question of the Government as to the extent of electoral fraud allegations in the north-west—what had been reported and what had been investigated—and the answer I received, which was not really an answer, was that that information could be provided only at disproportionate cost?

David Heath: I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend tells me. The topic has bedevilled our discussions. There are two aspects to the problem. First, people are not aware of the complaints that are being made and the investigations that have taken place, and at best know only about the successful prosecutions that are brought. Secondly, one of our concerns has been that when the Electoral Commission was asked to look into the matter, it was effectively asked to look at instances of complaint, rather than looking ab initio at a poll to see whether there was any evidence of fraud and malpractice, without a complaint having been made. At present, we rely on a complaint being initiated in order to estimate the problem. I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I deplore it.
	My new clause 2 contains some modest proposals to assist in preventing fraud in a postal ballot, and suggests that in the event of postal services being disrupted during an all-postal ballot, there should be contingency plans for polling stations to be available, but that in any case a collection point should be available for those who prefer to put their vote into the hands of a returning officer. I understand that the Minister is considering that, and there is a suggestion that at least one collection point will be available in each area. If that is the case, surely it should be written into the Bill, not left to secondary legislation or to the whims of returning officers. I hope the Minister will make his position plain and say what he intends to happen.
	The other new clause and the amendment in this group deal with the question of whether postal services are adequate for the task of providing for an all-postal ballot on the scale envisaged. Members of the Conservative Front-Bench team will no doubt speak to new clause 5, and I do not wish to pre-empt their proposals. The new clause deals with the situation before the ballot takes place. Amendment No. 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and me and is supported by the Conservatives, deals with the Electoral Commission's inquiry after the event and its recommendations for future all-postal ballots. The amendment simply suggests that the postal authorities need to be involved.
	The Electoral Commission has already shown itself to be aware of the need to do that, as evidenced by its new report published the week before last, paragraphs 2.27 to 2.30 of which deal with the ability of other agencies to deliver. Paragraph 2.30 refers specifically to the Royal Mail and tells us that
	"Royal Mail's Chief Executive has advised the Commission that Royal Mail is confident of their ability to deliver and return postal ballot papers in any combination of regions"
	and that it has
	"contingency plans for both industrial action or unforeseen interruptions to services".
	I do not always have total confidence in the management of the Royal Mail to deliver what they say they will deliver—"deliver" being the operative word. However, it is clear that there is a degree of confidence on the part of the postal services. Given that we list in the Bill the bodies and organisations that the Electoral Commission is required to consult, the Royal Mail and any alternative postal delivery systems should be part of that consultation. It is slightly surprising that they are not.
	In conclusion, new clause 2 deals with fraud, a matter that is taken seriously by Members in all parts of the House. We do not damn the postal voting system as being necessarily open to fraud, but we are concerned to ensure that the best possible measures are in place to avoid it. New clause 2 also deals with the postal system, which is, potentially at least, the weak link when we have an all-postal ballot over a wide area. That will inevitably be the case when we are dealing with two or three European regions of the country at a single time. Given that Minister's and the Electoral Commission's stated intention is to have national all-postal ballots at some stage in the future, it is important that we get these things right now rather than waiting for a disaster to happen and finding that we have an invalid or improper election of the sort that we would condemn elsewhere in the world.

Nick Hawkins: Our approach to the Government's proposals in the Bill is that if our electoral system is not broken, we should not try to fix it. We are not obsessed by so-called modernisation, as the Government are on this and many other issues. Many of us believe that, wherever possible, we should carry on with the traditional way of voting that people in this country have been used to for over 100 years. Nevertheless, we want to consider some of the Government's proposals constructively, while subjecting them to scrutiny as we have done in detail in Committee, and trying to improve the protections, particularly against fraud.
	As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made clear, that is the issue dealt with by the two new clauses and the amendment linked with them. As the hon. Gentleman observed, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support new clause 2 and amendment No. 3, and we have tabled new clause 5. We are particularly concerned about the dangers that fraud may be made easier if the proposals go through unamended. Partly in response to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), I draw attention to the comment from the Electoral Reform Society that for the first time since the 1872 ballot secrecy legislation, it considers that there is a risk that electoral fraud could occur.
	I shall quote the Electoral Reform Society's words, as it is important that those who read our proceedings be aware of them. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I thank the Electoral Reform Society for the helpful views that it expressed to many of us. In its brief for this debate, it states:
	"Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years. Of course, this is not a guarantee that such events will occur—but the risk is increased".
	There is much further evidence, not only in the Electoral Commission's latest report—which came out only on 8 December, so I forgive the right hon. Lady for not having seen it—but in many of the other research papers produced by the House of Commons Library and by the Local Government Association, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Joyce Quin: rose—

Nick Hawkins: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment. She spoke in the debate on Second Reading, so I know of her interest.
	Much of the evidence was publicised at the time of the postal pilots, even on the front pages of some of our national newspapers. There were allegations of fraud, some of which may not have been substantiated, but there were certainly some documented cases of fraud having taken place. The Electoral Reform Society, the Local Government Association and we in the House must take those increased risks seriously. There are particular problems, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, with houses in multiple occupation, the way in which the paperwork is sent, and the verifiability and security—by way of double envelopes—that are needed, in our view, in postal pilots.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman's quote from the Electoral Reform Society related to worries about risks and not to evidence. I am prepared to look at any evidence that may exist. He said that if the system was not broke, there was no need to fix it, but huge increases—from, say, 25 per cent. to 60 per cent. in turnout for local elections—show that there was a problem that postal ballots are doing a great deal to address.

Nick Hawkins: I disagree with the right hon. Lady's conclusion. I refer her to the Electoral Commission report, which was only issued on 8 December, as I mentioned. In passing, I may say that I was slightly surprised that the Electoral Commission, which has previously been good at immediately sending all its reports to hon. Members who are interested in these matters, did not manage to get that report to us. I am indebted to Library officials, as we so often are, for getting me a photocopy, without which I could not have referred to the issues involved. Under the title "Fraud considerations", paragraph 2.31 states:
	"The Commission takes issues of fraud and the perception of fraud very seriously, and has recommended to Government that additional measures be introduced as part of future all-postal and electronic pilot schemes, to ensure more effective deterrence against, and measuring of, attempted fraud. We note that the Government has included in the Pilots bill a changed offence of personation for the pilot area in line with the previous Commission recommendation."
	The report goes on to state:
	"The Commission has further stated that all-postal voting should not be made generally available until further measures are introduced.—critically the Commission believes that the introduction of individual registration is a necessary precondition for moving beyond all-postal pilot schemes to full roll-out."

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the possibility of intimidation, which has not been mentioned, is relevant? One benefit that our time-honoured system provides is absolute security so that people—let us say that they could mainly be women in this context—can vote in safety in the privacy of the ballot booth. If people will now be expected to fill out voter forms in the home, the office or wherever, there is at least a risk that they could be intimidated by other family members or who knows whom, and we should be very aware of that issue in considering the possibilities.

Nick Hawkins: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The issue to which he refers is one of the reasons why extra elements of security are so vital in relation to postal voting.
	Furthermore—this may help the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and other hon. Members—the House of Commons research paper on the issues associated with the Bill contains a lot of work on fraud and the danger that it may increase under the Bill. The research paper states:
	"there is concern that personation has taken place at previous elections. A question asked by Lord Greaves in the House of Lords highlighted some areas of concern".
	That question was asked in 1997–98. In relation to the most recent Birmingham city council elections and the postal pilot in Birmingham, the research paper goes on to state:
	"A politician appointed to investigate claims of fraud at this year's Birmingham City Council elections says he has already uncovered 'worrying' evidence pointing towards possible irregularities."
	That comes from somebody who was appointed to look into claims that fraud might have taken place. The document continues:
	"At the heart of the inquiry are claims that postal votes were misused and that organised gangs 'stole' hundreds of votes through personation—falsely claiming to be people on the electoral register."
	Councillor Alden, who is in charge of the inquiry, was hoping to complete it by the end of this month. I have not seen the results, but there is serious concern. Councillor Alden states:
	"There is worrying evidence of a substantial amount of personation in Birmingham over the past few years, where people are impersonating other people at the polling station and voting."
	A report published in The Guardian in September last year also referred to a number of allegations of electoral fraud. The issue has not simply been dreamed up by Opposition Members; it is causing concern throughout the country, and in cities such as Birmingham and Leicester; indeed, what happened in Leicester was one of the cases publicised in the national press.

Tom Harris: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) about the difference between the potential for fraud and the reality, the hon. Gentleman may be able to confirm that some of the problems that he has mentioned occurred in traditional polling booth voting and would not arise only in postal voting. The traditional voting arrangements already have potential for a huge amount of deception and fraud, but he seems inordinately concerned about opportunities for fraud in postal voting. Surely, the only reason why fraud has been detected in postal ballots is that no investigations such as those that have been mentioned have occurred in respect of traditional polling. If such investigations took place, there might be evidence to show that fraudulent voting and personation has occurred on some scale throughout the country for more than 100 years.

Nick Hawkins: I do not think that the Electoral Reform Society, which has the experts and specialists on this matter, takes that view. In commenting specifically on what happened in the all-postal pilots in the 2003 local elections, it said:
	"Other problems arose as a result of the all-postal pilots. In the past, postal votes were open to council offices in the two days prior to polling day and party observers were able to watch this process providing they had signed a declaration of secrecy. However, with the vast numbers involved in all-postal ballots, councils took the decision to open the ballots as they came in and invited party observers to watch. At this much earlier stage, it was therefore possible for parties to see how they were doing in each ward and effect changes to their campaigning strategy as a result. There needs to be a debate about whether this is a desirable outcome from the move to all-postal ballots or whether the declaration of secrecy should seek to (or even can) bar discussion within a party over their prospects."
	There is not only the personation problem, but the intimidation problem to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred, as well as the secrecy issue. Without being too partisan about those issues, we are genuinely trying to introduce extra elements of security, especially in respect of houses in multiple occupation.

Neil Turner: I think that all hon. Members would want to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot was maintained as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman referred to two investigations—one by a councillor and another by The Guardian newspaper. He did not refer, however, to paragraph 2.33 of the Electoral Commission report:
	"As part of our evaluation of pilot schemes the Commission assesses whether the pilot scheme has led to an increase in personation or other electoral malpractice. However, we have no reason to believe that pilot schemes have to date resulted in an increase in the incidence of electoral offences."
	The Electoral Commission was set up specifically to consider such issues in an unbiased way, but its view is that the pilots have not led to any increase in the incidence of the problems that he mentioned.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman refers to what is now paragraph 2.33 on page 13 of the Electoral Commission's report, but if he reads on, he will see that paragraph 2.36 states:
	"The Commission accepts public perception is that some areas of the United Kingdom appear to be more prone to electoral fraud than others; we have no conclusive evidence this is in fact the case. However such a perception can, and should be, challenged through rigorously audited all-postal pilot schemes."
	The new clauses and amendment suggest that introducing greater security will make the process much safer, so that there is much less risk of fraud and a greater opportunity to conduct auditing.
	I shall now deal specifically with the new clauses and amendment. On new clause 2, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but to which we have added our names, we think that verifiability is crucial. We also think that the requirement for acknowledgement by the returning officer is crucial in terms of fraud prevention. I will be very surprised if the Minister is unable to accept the new clause, because it does not harm his legislation in any way, but is something that Conservative Members and the Liberal Democrats feel strongly about.
	Most important is paragraph (c), which would ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place in the event of disruptions to postal services. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I have many problems with the postal authorities at the moment. I would be straying out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I talked too much about the huge battles in which I am involved—as are many hon. Members on both sides of the House—in attempting to save post offices. I have not been at all impressed by the attitude of the management of the Royal Mail or the Post Office in recent months and years, and I shall continue to pursue those issues over Christmas and the new year.
	Paragraph (d) suggests the implementation of any anti-fraud measures that are recommended by the Electoral Commission: again, it is difficult to see why the Government should oppose that sensible change.
	I very much hope that the Government will accept new clause 2—if not, we shall want to press it.
	I turn to our new clause 5, which would provide further protections in relation to postal voting. Many Members on both sides of the House have huge concerns about the significant deterioration in the service that is provided to all our constituents, particularly in the light of the disruption that was caused by the recent industrial action. Those concerns were most recently ventilated in this Chamber last Thursday in the very good debate on the report on the Post Office by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We therefore believe that the Bill should contain what one might call a come-back against those who run the postal services, so that the chief executive concerned would have to give this House a clear and unambiguous undertaking that the postal services will be able to provide what is required for an all-postal pilot for a combined European and local election. If we do not have that, the pilot should not go ahead.
	Conservative Members have added their names to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 3, which, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome explained, would require the Electoral Commission to consult the postal authorities after the event. Taken together, our new clause 5 and the Liberal Democrat amendment would provide for consultation with and undertakings from those managing the postal authorities beforehand, as well as a clear report back afterwards, providing belt and braces security for the arrangements.
	I do not want to repeat the sensible points that were made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We agree with him on this matter—indeed, if anything we feel even more strongly about its importance. I hope that the Government will heed this crucial group of improvements to the Bill.

Alan Hurst: I want to comment on a couple of points, the first of which concerns the risk of impersonation and corruption in the electoral process. Historically, there has not been a major problem in this country since the mid-1920s, when cathedral cities were the most prone to corruption, with the seats of ancient universities coming second. Since then, as far as we can tell, we have been almost corruption-free, and one trusts that we will remain so. The danger area is that of all-postal ballots in places with a high degree of multiple occupation. As those of us who have practised the art of politics over many years know, areas of multiple occupation often have the lowest turnouts in any election. There are all sorts of reasons for that, one of which is that the people who live there tend not to stay for long. The opportunity for the misuse of postal ballots must be much greater in those areas than in established communities. I hope that those who observe such matters will pay attention to whether there is a dramatic change in voting patterns in those high-risk areas.
	My second point concerns the implication that there may have been personation before, under the traditional system, but we did not know about it. I am not necessarily convinced by that. There was always a safeguard in the shape of the party tellers who sat at the entrance of the village hall, town hall or library—normally one from each party, and preferably local to the area in which they were taking down the numbers. They might say, "Wait a moment—they have already been in once before", or, "He moved away several years ago—what is he doing voting here?" That degree of involvement or knowledge can be applied in traditional village hall or town hall voting, but is impossible in an all-postal ballot. We need more information, and I hope that the pilot schemes will provide it.

Angela Watkinson: New clause 2 would introduce some essential safeguards to the security and confidentiality of the postal voting process. All-postal voting was piloted in the London borough of Havering in the last local elections. There was an increase in turnout, so the experiment was successful in that respect. However, I have reservations about making voting easy for people who would otherwise not bother to do so. Postal voting is already available to anybody who is motivated enough to ask for it—it is no longer necessary to specify the reason. Anybody who is unable to get to a polling station because he is disabled, working, on holiday, ill, or for any other reason is already eligible for a postal vote. Now, we are spoon-feeding people who cannot be bothered to vote. Instead, we should meet the challenge by increasing people's interest so that they are motivated to take the trouble to vote.
	In Havering, several serious flaws in the voting arrangements became apparent during the election period: the new clause seeks to address those. Paragraph (a) would require all ballot papers to be accompanied by a verifiable form of identification. That was one of the main difficulties that arose. Electors were sent by post a ballot paper, a declaration of identity and the necessary instructions, together with one envelope in which to return to the town hall both their ballot paper marked with their choice of candidate and their declaration of identity. A significant number of electors objected to that one-envelope system on the grounds that the person opening the envelope and separating the two pieces of paper could see how they had voted. Indeed, it was possible. It is impossible to know whether anyone took advantage of this opportunity or not, but the important point is that the opportunity existed and that the confidentiality of the voting process was compromised as a result.
	The separation of ballot papers from declarations of identity is a necessary procedure, as the ballot papers have to be put into a ballot box for transfer to—in Havering's case—the Electoral Commission for the count. I urge the Minister to ensure that a two-envelope system is always used in any future postal ballot, so that it would be possible to ensure that each ballot paper is accompanied by the requisite declaration of identity, but that no ballot paper could be linked to any identified elector.

Tom Harris: The new clause refers to the return of ballot papers accompanied by a "verifiable form" of identification. That suggests to me not the simple declaration that I am who I say I am, but a document that says who I am, such as a passport or a driving licence. What is the hon. Lady's understanding of that term?

Angela Watkinson: My understanding is that it is a declaration of identity. I am sure that the new clause does not propose that people should post their precious passports or other documents that could easily be lost. I received significant numbers of complaints from electors who did not wish anybody to be able to see how they had voted. I am sure that given the volume of post nobody had the slightest interest, but the point is that it was possible for that to happen.

David Heath: The Electoral Commission has produced its own recommendation that individual registration is a necessary precondition for rolling out the scheme. That is one form of verifiable identification.

Angela Watkinson: It is essential that electors be able to have total confidence in the confidentiality of the voting process. In all-postal ballots, unlike voting in the traditional way at a polling station, electors cannot witness their ballot paper being put into a sealed ballot box. New clause 2(b) would require acknowledgements to be sent to electors for returned ballot papers. This would help to overcome the doubts of many electors that they would have no way of knowing whether their ballot papers had been received at the town hall. Indeed, given the number of items of post that are acknowledged routinely to go missing, it is reasonable to assume that some ballot papers might not arrive at their intended destination.
	I personally have had several items of post go missing this year—that I know about. One was correctly addressed and had a first class stamp on it. It arrived in perfect condition, undamaged and not dog-eared or showing any signs of having been on a long and difficult journey, three months after it had been posted at a point about 10 miles away. Another item of post was sent to me from this House to my home address just before the summer recess, and I am still waiting for it to arrive. It has disappeared into a black hole. Delays of that kind involving election documents would deprive electors of their vote, and that is a serious matter.
	The same problem would apply to the receipt by voters of their blank ballot papers and acknowledgements of their completed ballot papers. I received a number of complaints during the election period from people who had not received their ballot paper from the town hall. On inquiring at the town hall, they had been told that it had been sent to them. There was no form of appeal, and no way of obtaining a duplicate ballot paper. Often, time was too short to do anything about that. Wrong delivery is another complication. Some people redirect mail if it is wrongly delivered through their letter box, but not everyone takes the trouble to do so. Some wrongly delivered items therefore end up in kitchen waste bins, never to be seen again, and it is difficult to see how that problem could be overcome.
	New clause 2(c) requires arrangements to be made for the personal delivery of ballot papers for those electors who prefer that, or in the event of a disruption of postal services. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a sensible requirement for contingency arrangements which should be included in this Bill. One collection point in each constituency would not be enough, particularly in rural areas, or in areas in which elderly voters prefer to stick to the traditional voting method that they have always used. Many of them like to go to a familiar polling station, and they resent having to change the way in which they vote. That option should be available to them.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be relieved to know that this point was raised in Committee. She will also have noticed from the amendment paper today that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled new clause 6, although it was not selected for debate because the matter had already been dealt with in Committee. The new clause dealt with the preservation of the traditional methods of voting. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I quoted her when we debated the issue in Committee.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution.
	New clause 2(d) provides for the reduction of opportunities for personation and other forms of malpractice that postal voting makes much easier. Every precaution possible must be taken to protect the confidentiality of the vote, to ensure the security of the transfer of votes from one place to another, whether by post or motor vehicle, and to ensure that nobody is either influenced or intimidated in relation to the way in which they vote, or deprived of their vote, or able to vote more than once. We must also ensure that the person casting the vote is the person who is entitled to do so.
	The Electoral Reform Society supports those views, and does not believe that the Bill will be in a form that is ready to be introduced until every possible means has been used to combat potential fraud, because of the various issues that I have just raised. Too many uncertainties exist at the moment for all-postal ballots to be introduced without resolving the opportunities for fraud, and the Bill should not proceed until that has been done.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend the Minister will be relieved to hear that I intend to make only a few brief points. First, I would like to respond to the heartfelt and genuine view expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) that it is necessary to maintain traditional polling practices because some voters, particularly older people, have gone to the same polling station year after year and want to maintain that practice. However, the problem lies not with our older voters, who will always come out and vote; it lies with our younger voters—people aged 18 upwards—who do not vote and whom we need to persuade to vote. Senior citizens have a great sense of civic responsibility and need no extra encouragement to vote. They already understand their responsibilities. It is younger voters to whom we need to introduce new forms of voting because they have shown time and again that they are reluctant to vote. We need to deal with that problem.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that apathy and indifference are themselves political acts, and that it is perfectly legitimate for a citizen of whatever age, young or old, not to vote because they are not interested or do not think it worth while, or because it is, in their view, a bit difficult to do so? One of the great dangers inherent in the obsession with making it easier to vote is that people may in the end undervalue the process rather than value it fully.

Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I have some sympathy with it. My problem with the general approach to making the political system more engaging and relevant is that there is a danger of putting certain issues on the back burner. We are trying to introduce a fairly radical measure to encourage higher turnout in the short term. I am sure that he would approve of more strategic measures to engage people of all ages and classes politically and to encourage them to become more involved in the political process. Unfortunately, I do not think that that is going to happen in the short term. We need to come up with some shorter-term measures to find out whether it is possible to increase engagement. That may not happen as a result of the Bill, and we will then have to go back to the drawing board. I support the Bill, however, because it provides us with an opportunity to see whether this innovation will work.
	I draw the House's attention briefly to a point that I raised with the hon. Member for Upminster about new clause 2, which proposes that
	"all ballot papers returned are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification".
	I accept what she said about the verification of identity, but, technically, that is not what the new clause refers to. It refers to a "verifiable form of identification", and I do not believe that that could apply to a simple statement claiming that I am who I am. A form of identification is a document proving that a person has a particular identity, not that they are claiming to have that identity. On that basis, the House must reject new clause 2.
	I am intrigued by new clause 5. It proposes:
	"The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements for the ballot."
	I wonder how the House would react if the chief executives of a commercially run organisation were to write to the Minister before an all-postal ballot—and the letters published in the House of Commons Library—stating that they were incapable of carrying out the duties for which their companies were being well subsidised by the public purse. I intend no disrespect to the chief executives involved, but if any of them thought that there were a possibility that even one in 10,000 of the ballot papers would go missing and wrote to the Minister to say, "Hold on, don't have this all-postal ballot because I cannot guarantee that one in 10,000 ballot papers will not go missing", it would undermine the commercial viability of the organisation concerned.

Nick Hawkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, when we are talking about the postal services being used for the vital purpose of voting in elections, those who hold those exalted positions should be able to be held to account by the House? Is that not what we are here for?

Tom Harris: Absolutely, but the postal services are there to provide a day-to-day service on behalf of citizens to the best of their ability, and, I would hope, to a high standard, regardless of whether it is Christmas and there is extra demand or of whether there is a 100 per cent. postal ballot. It should not be necessary for the chief executive of such an organisation to claim in advance that it is, after all, capable of doing the job that it was established to do.

Christopher Leslie: I agree with much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). We should encourage people to vote, and furthermore we should remove any physical obstacles that might prevent them from exercising their democratic right to voice their preferences. That is at the heart of our proposals. New clause 2, however, would prevent all-postal ballots from taking place until the establishment of certain security and contingency measures. An identical amendment was tabled in Committee, but was not reached.
	We do not need contingency measures in the Bill, because adequate provision can be made in the detailed pilot order mentioned in clause 2. I do not deny that we need extra measures to combat fraud, but they belong in the pilot order.

Eric Forth: Some of us would prefer provision to be made in the Bill, but can we take what the Minister has just said as a guarantee that it will be made in full in delegated legislation?

Christopher Leslie: We certainly intend the pilot order to contain anti-fraud measures, supplementing those already in the Bill. It should be borne in mind that the Bill already contains two clauses dealing specifically with personation outside the polling station and extending the time in which prosecution is possible, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be supplementary provisions in the order.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned houses in multiple occupation. I assure him that we will consider hand delivery to certain areas if there is evidence of a problem. We have not closed our minds to the need for all people to receive the ballot papers to which they are entitled in as reasonable a way as possible.

Christopher Chope: A university hall of residence, for instance, may contain 150 students in separate rooms. Is the Minister suggesting that the election officer will hand deliver to each student?

Christopher Leslie: I hope that that will not be necessary—I have considerable faith in the workings of the postal service—but if there is evidence of a failure the regional returning officers will take account of it and consider hand delivery if that proves necessary. I do not think that that will be the norm, though. It has not been the norm under the existing postal voting arrangements—many students and others in houses in multiple occupation already apply for and are granted postal votes through the postal authorities.
	New clause 2 suggests that a "verifiable form of identification" accompany each vote cast. Unlike the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, I understood that to mean that the ballot paper should be accompanied by, for example, a passport or driving licence, or perhaps a gas or electricity bill. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested sotto voce that it was actually a reference to individualised registration, which is something we are considering. Certainly, if we are to extend all-postal voting permanently, we shall need to ensure that we can act in such a way if it proves necessary.

David Heath: Let me be less sotto voce. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to provide explanatory notes with new clauses. If pre-registration of identity were adopted, a document to that effect could accompany a ballot paper.

Christopher Leslie: As I said, we are considering the Electoral Commission's proposal for individual registration, and that may well be possible. However, I do not think that either the verifiable form of identification suggested in the new clause or the extra criterion proposed by the hon. Gentleman is necessary. Under our proposed arrangements, voters will already be required to verify their identities by signing a security statement. It is difficult to see what difference providing another form of identification would make, and how the system would be administered.

Nick Hawkins: May I ask a question about houses in multiple occupation and the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)? The Electoral Reform Society's latest brief, which expresses concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, challenges the Government on that score. It suggests that the potential problem is not limited to HMOs and student halls of residence, and that even in single family households votes might be "harvested" by a head of household choosing to vote on behalf of everyone in that household. What the society, and Conservative Members, want to know is this: what safeguards against that risk do the Government propose?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is challenging not just all-postal voting, but the principle that has for a long time enabled people to exercise their right to vote via the post. I do not believe that any system is beyond criticism, but that also applies to conventional polling station voting. No doubt all hon. Members could dream up a series of theoretical scenarios involving potential fraudulence, but I know of no evidence of any significant problem involving "harvesting". If we have evidence of a particularly pernicious problem we will certainly consider action, but in the absence of such evidence that would be a somewhat academic exercise.

Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Leslie: I want to make some progress but I will give way briefly.

Eric Forth: At its simplest, my argument is as follows. It is unlikely that I could persuade someone at a polling station that I was Mrs. Forth; it is much more likely that I could use her ballot paper and vote by post on her behalf. The onus is on those who argue for increased postal voting to provide much more reassurance that what is impossible at a polling station will be equally impossible by post.

Christopher Leslie: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says but it does not affect what I said to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Anyone can imagine any number of possible scenarios, but in practice we must act on the evidence we have, and I see no evidence of a problem in that regard.
	The new clause also proposes that all voters should receive acknowledgments. They are not sent under the traditional arrangements for postal voting, and in the case of all-postal voting such a system would prove both costly and burdensome. Surely it is more sensible to ensure that ballot papers are delivered correctly in the first place. Our work with the postal authorities and returning officers will minimise the potential for fraud and lost ballot papers.

Richard Younger-Ross: The example that the Conservatives quoted in respect of personation is a good one. The Minister said that there is no evidence, but there are other examples of postal election fraud—involving care homes—that returning officers are concerned about. Indeed, there are many examples of care home owners having tampered with the postal vote system on behalf of their residents. What safeguards is the Minister going to provide in that regard?

Christopher Leslie: As I have said, we should proceed on the basis of evidence, and if the hon. Gentleman has some I should be more than happy to look at it.

Richard Younger-Ross: What about St. Ives?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman says "St. Ives", but perhaps he could be a bit more specific and write to me. That would help us to look into the matter.
	New clause 2 refers to drop-off points and active polling stations, to which people can still physically go to place their ballot. Such provision is already planned, and I can assure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that, as a minimum, returning officers will be required to provide at least one supported drop-off point in each local authority district. However, they will have discretion to provide more drop-off points in places suitable for local people, if doing so is appropriate to the particular locality. The hon. Member for Upminster was seeking that level of flexibility. At supported drop-off points, voters will be able to complete and deposit their ballot papers in an environment similar to that of a traditional polling station. They will also have access to trained election officials.
	The final part of new clause 2 would give automatic effect to any Electoral Commission recommendation on reducing personation or other electoral fraud. That would not be appropriate. Constitutionally, it would not be appropriate to hand over our law-making powers to the commission, as it cannot be held accountable in the same way as Ministers can. Although the commission's advice is extremely valuable, the Government will always want to consider the recommendations in the broader scheme of things, and to make decisions accountable to Parliament. The Bill's two provisions relating to electoral offences stem from commission recommendations. They provide a safe and secure basis on which to undertake the pilot, in addition to existing electoral law provisions and the further arrangements that, as I have already undertaken, will be detailed in the pilot order.

Nick Hawkins: It would be helpful, given the Minister's undertakings in relation to pilot orders, if he confirmed that each and every pilot order would have to be fully debated by this House. Am I right in that understanding?

Christopher Leslie: We shall come in due course to amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled in respect of parliamentary scrutiny of such orders. The main order is by statutory instrument, but the same is not true of the pilot order. That remains our intention, but we will debate the issue later.
	New clause 5 would require that the chief executive of the postal authorities make a statement
	"that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements",
	and amendment No. 3 would require the Electoral Commission to consult the postal authorities on the efficacy of postal voting arrangements. My Department's officials are in continuing dialogue with the Royal Mail and are confident of the strength of both general and contingency arrangements. In addition, returning officers will already have their own local relationship with the Royal Mail. The Government will, however, do all that they can to facilitate meetings, or to assist with any additional arrangements that may need to be put in place as part of the pilots. All that is extremely important, in order to ensure that the best locally targeted services are provided. However, it is difficult to see what additional value a written statement from a chief executive would provide. Surely the focus should instead be on providing the most secure and reliable service on the ground. I do not believe that such a statement would add particular value, so I hope that the House will reject the proposal.
	On amendment No. 3, the Electoral Commission and the postal authorities already have a role in reporting on and scrutinising postal arrangements. The amendment is not needed to allow that to happen. The commission seeks the input of the Royal Mail in providing guidance to returning officers on local election pilots. It also seeks the comments of Royal Mail and of Postcomm on the conduct of pilots, as part of the post-election evaluation. Moreover, the commission's general functions are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and its functions in relation to local election pilots are described in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The provision in clause 4 mirrors closely that in the latter Act, which contains no provision of the type suggested in the amendment; nor does the Bill require it.
	It is therefore clear that, although the result that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome seeks through amendment No. 3 is a positive one, the amendment is not required in order to achieve it. There is a danger that we become too prescriptive in what we ask the Electoral Commission to do. Although it is important that we supply a framework of issues for it to consider, we must also allow it flexibility in its work. The best approach is not to list exhaustively every last thing that the commission must consider and report on. I hope that I have provided a comprehensive study of the new clauses and the amendment, and that the House will resist them.

David Heath: This has been an extremely useful debate, which has illustrated that hon. Members on both sides of the House share a genuine desire to prevent electoral fraud in every instance. Many are concerned that all-postal ballots provide further opportunities—let us put it no stronger than that—for fraud and malpractice. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for his comments. I was slightly concerned when he said that the hotbeds of personation are cathedral cities and ancient universities. Having been brought up in one and having attended the other, I feel personally indicted by his comments. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wonder whether the level of conversation could be reduced somewhat. It is rather difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath: I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The comments of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about her experiences in the borough of Havering, along with the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), illustrate the problems that we face; indeed, the same can be said of the interventions of other Members. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) takes a real and genuine interest in these matters. His construction of the intention behind my new clause is not the same as mine, but we shall simply have to differ on that.
	I want to concentrate on what the Minister said by way of reply. He has given us some cause for comfort. He said that something—we know not what—will be introduced as part of the pilot orders that will go some way towards satisfying our concerns about fraudulent practices in postal schemes.

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, if the House is not going to be able to study the pilot order when it is introduced, it is rather difficult for him, me and our colleagues to accept what the Minister says by way of promises for the future?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Electoral Commission is in many ways our lodestone on these matters. Paragraph 2.31 of its report clearly states:
	"The Commission takes issues of fraud and the perception of fraud very seriously, and has recommended to Government that additional measures be introduced as part of future all-postal and electronic pilot schemes, to ensure more effective deterrence against, and measuring of, attempted fraud."
	That is what we are all saying. Paragraph 2.32 states:
	"The Commission has further stated that all-postal voting should not be made generally available until further measures are introduced—critically the Commission believes that the introduction of individual registration is a necessary precondition for moving beyond all-postal pilot schemes to full roll-out."
	I contend that, on a scale involving more than one European region, we are very close to full roll-out. If the commission has genuine concerns about the existing arrangements for postal ballots, it is incumbent on this House to deal with the matter. I agree with the Minister that it is not the commission's determination that matters; what matters is our determination to agree with the commission. That is why I invite the House to agree with the commission's views this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has said that he is even more supportive of my new clause than I am. How he measures that I do not know but, as I wrote it, I defy him to display greater enthusiasm for it in the Lobby than me. Indeed, I invite all hon. Members on both sides of the House to show that they will not put up with corrupt practices, or the potential for them, in our electoral system. That is what new clause 2 would go some way towards preventing.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Additional provisions in respect of electronic voting

'Before making any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for electronic voting, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the manner in which the election is conducted (which may or may not be modified by pilot orders under section 2) ensures that—
	(a) all votes cast are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification;
	(b) each elector who has cast a vote is given an acknowledgement by the returning officer;
	(c) systems are in place to allow for a re-count should it be necessary;
	(d) systems are in place to ensure that any vote cast by electronic means can be traced to its source in the event of challenge; and
	(e) any recommendation or recommendations of the Electoral Commission to reduce the incidence or possibility of personation or other electoral offences or malpractice are given effect.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 4—Conduct of elections under a pilot order—
	'Any pilot order made under section 2 may make provision for—
	(a) all-postal voting; or
	(b) any combination of postal voting and voting in person at a polling station;
	but may not make provision for any other manner of conducting an election.'.
	New clause 7—Matters not to be included in pilots—
	'No pilot may include any use of voting electronically by computer, mobile telephone, SMS, text or any other form of e-voting.'.

David Heath: The debate now moves from postal voting to all-electronic voting. New clause 3 was tabled prior to the recent report from the Electoral Commission. As with the provisions in new clause 2 in relation to postal voting, new clause 3 would introduce new safeguards for electronic voting.
	Electronic voting raises even more pertinent questions about fraud prevention than does the use of postal ballot papers. However, I tabled new clause 4 after the publication of the Electoral Commission report, and to some extent it supersedes new clause 3. I am grateful for the support given to new clause 4 by Conservative Front-Bench Members.
	3.15 pm
	New clause 4 makes it clear that we feel that electronic voting should not form part of the pilot schemes to be held under the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been rejected in the Electoral Commission report. Paragraph 3.20 states:
	"The Commission is not able to recommend that any region is suitable to undertake an e-enabled pilot scheme, as we believe that no region is ready for such innovation at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme."
	Moreover, paragraph 3.21 states:
	"The Commission acknowledges that there is some enthusiasm for electronic voting to feature in a 2004 pilot scheme but also that there is a recognition of the risks involved. We have come to the view that there is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June."
	New clause 4 is one of two litmus tests before the Government this afternoon. Much has been said about the Electoral Commission's importance, impartiality and independence, and about how it has looked at these matters in depth. The Minister has said, quite properly, that it is Ministers who first propose legislation, and then in the end determine what is included in a Bill. However, we have said all along that it would be improper for Ministers to overrule the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, unless they have extremely good reasons for doing so. Moreover, they must be able to explain any such reasons to the satisfaction of the House.
	I do not believe that the Government have any grounds on which to reject the Electoral Commission's findings, which in effect underwrite the concerns expressed in Committee. The test is whether the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's clear recommendation. If they exclude it from the Bill, we need to know on what grounds they have made their determination, and for what reason.
	I shall not detain the House on these new clauses, as I suspect that the battle has been won. I believe that our concerns have been recognised, and that the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation. I do not know whether they will accept new clause 4. I hope that they do, but they may continue to resist it on the ground that they will take a decision on it at some nebulous point in the future.
	We must wait and see what the Minister has to say on that score. I shall return to the matter if his response is inadequate. It is not my intention to press new clause 3 to a Division at the end of this short debate, but I shall certainly ask the House to divide on new clause 4, which would, in effect, put the Electoral Commission's recommendation into action. That recommendation is the only right and proper position for the Government and Parliament to take.

Alan Hurst: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the report by the Electoral Commission and he will have heard what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said on the issue, which may be supported by other hon. Members. While there is some evidence—it is not overwhelming, but it is considerable—that all-postal ballots increase turnout in local elections to about 50 per cent., some 40 years ago that would have been regarded as par for the course in ordinary elections. My father was a borough councillor and was often elected or defeated on turnouts of about 60 per cent. in local elections. These days, we might think that such figures represented progress in a general election.
	There may be a case for all-postal voting, but there is probably no case for new-fangled electronic techniques, which many people—including one or two Members of Parliament—may not fully understand. Therefore, we would create two classes of elector: those who know about such things and those who do not. One of the problems caused by juggling around with the electoral process is that it creates uncertainty. I have read a helpful Library paper on turnout in various pilot schemes and I cast my eye over one or two of the tables reproduced in it. One of them gave the figures for spoiled ballot papers, and the largest number spoiled by voting for more than one candidate or for no candidate occurred in 2001, 1997 and 1979. Those were all years in which there was another election held alongside the general election, which created natural confusion in the minds of some people. Thus, the number of spoiled ballot papers rose dramatically, compared with other occasions.
	I do not wish to labour the point too strongly, but we must be mindful that if we alter the mechanism of voting—the way we vote—we may change the decisions that the electorate make. If we make it easier for those who have electronic equipment to vote and more confusing for those who are unused to electronic equipment to vote, the result may be different from what it would have been had we not taken those steps. All those issues need to be considered with great care.
	We have yet to reach the ultimate test for postal voting, which would be its application in a general election. It would take a courageous Government, of whichever party, to take that decision, because it would almost certainly create a different result to the old system. However, it is only when that step is taken that we will see whether all-postal voting, or anything other than ballot-box voting, increases turnout. In limited pilots, such as local government elections or European elections, we might only be raising the number of those who vote to the levels of general elections, and the changes in the voting system might not make any difference in a general election. The only final test would be applying the system to a general election and we may need to think long and hard before we take that step. Meanwhile, if we should beware of anything we should beware of electronic voting, which could distort the result of an election.

Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said, this group contains new clause 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats before the Electoral Commission report was published, and new clause 4, which supersedes new clause 3 and to which we have added our names. We had added our names before we saw the report, which pleased me because it showed that we realised which of the new clauses was going further in our direction.
	The group also contains new clause 7, which we tabled. I anticipate that the Minister will be able to be helpful, in the light of the Electoral Commission ruling out e-voting for next year's pilot, but even if he were able to convince the Liberal Democrats not to press new clause 4, I would wish to press new clause 7. We want a total ban on e-voting included in the Bill, because we have no enthusiasm whatever for it.
	I said earlier that the Conservative party sees no need for so-called modernisation, which would spoil our traditional election methods. We can see some case for some expansion in postal voting, although many of my hon. Friends have taken the view that the changes that have already been made—which allow people who want postal votes to obtain them easily—are as far as we need to go. However, with some reluctance, we have accepted the possible need for further pilot schemes for postal voting, but in our opposition to e-voting we go even further than the Electoral Commission, which says that regions are not yet ready for it. We are delighted that the Electoral Commission has come to that conclusion, because all the evidence of technical people that e-voting systems are not secure reinforces it. We want to make clear our complete opposition to e-voting being included in the Bill. It would demean elections to start treating them as though people were voting in a television game show such as "Big Brother"—[Interruption.]

Christopher Leslie: I know that the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to hear what I have to say before he decides definitely to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Nick Hawkins: Of course I will give the Minister that courtesy, but unless my ears deceive me, I thought I heard the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary saying, "Hear, hear" to some of the things that I said about "Big Brother". If I am getting support even from the PPS, it reinforces the strength of my views.
	We do think that the issue is vital, and I shall explain why. When it comes to e-voting, had the Government proceeded with their original plans—as they gave every indication of doing when the Bill was in Committee—one region would have had voting by telephone, by text messaging or so-called SMS voting, via digital television and via the internet. As the region that might have adopted e-voting would also have been an all-postal one, voting electronically in a polling station would not have been relevant.
	As I said, my party is not in favour of e-voting, not only for the European election but generally. As the Electoral Commission has come to the view that there
	"is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June 2004",
	we are reinforced in our opposition. The commission continued:
	"Although local election electronic pilots have been delivered in less than six months, we believe that the scale of a regional pilot presents a higher level of complexity . . . when assessed against the criteria no region would be suitable to conduct an electronic voting pilot."
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made that point clear.
	One of our many objections to e-voting is that, apart from the fact that it demeans elections—I very much welcome the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) from the Government Back Benches—in the few pilots that have been held it has not had a significant effect on turnout. The Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2002 electronic voting pilots noted that
	"the findings suggest that the advent of new technology did not inspire the electorate to vote in significantly greater numbers than would otherwise have been the case . . . there is no strong pattern of improved turnout."
	That quotation comes from page 62 of the commission's report, "Modernising Elections", published in August 2002.
	Even if one accepted the Government's criteria and agreed that the proposals might be a way of overcoming voter apathy, a view expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) in response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we were discussing the need to give young people extra reasons to vote, I cannot see that the e-voting pilots have in any way encouraged young people to vote.

Tom Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman's opposition to e-voting solely related to the Bill or is it a point of principle with no time limit? In other words, is he simply opposed to e-voting? The reason for my question is this: since the congestion charge was introduced I have regularly paid it by text, which is a fantastically accurate and efficient system, and I imagine that at some point in the future—not next year, but within the next 10 years or so—most people will think that is a perfectly natural way of casting their vote.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman, especially on his congestion charge example. I continue to receive letters from throughout my constituency and to read many horror stories in the newspapers with descriptions of how people with vehicles such as vintage cars, which have never left the garage, are being wrongly charged by Capita. There are also cases where people fraudulently use number plates, so I do not think that the example is a good one.
	I am about to go into our objections to e-voting in more detail as it is important to put such things on the record, but to answer the hon. Gentleman's direct question, they are not restricted only to the Bill. We take the view that e-voting is demeaning of the whole election process. However, the strongest reason for our objection to e-voting, not only for the Bill but for the immediately foreseeable future, is that IT experts say that the system is not yet secure against the danger of electoral fraud.
	Our objection might not remain for ever, but we shall certainly maintain it for the foreseeable future. While IT experts say that the system is not secure and the Electoral Commission expresses concerns, my party cannot envisage being ready to welcome e-voting in the immediate future. There are two aspects at this stage: the practical points relating to the views of the Electoral Commission and to IT security; and the issues of principle. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
	Before one could possibly contemplate substantial e-voting developments, one would have to address the issues that have cropped up not merely in this country but elsewhere. We are hugely concerned about security. The hon. Gentleman and other Members may be interested to learn that I have some professional expertise in e-security. Before I was a Member of the House, I worked as a corporate lawyer at a senior level in the credit card industry, and during my 11½ years in this place I have continued to take a great interest in electronic security measures. Quite apart from my Front-Bench duties, I am personally interested in the issue.
	Under the small-scale electronic voting pilots that have taken place, important information, such as pin numbers for e-voting, has been sent to voters by what the Electoral Commission conceded could be insecure means; for example, postcards that give the pin numbers could be read by someone else in a house of multiple occupation. The internet can also be insecure. Many Members have suffered from such problems in their offices and both the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and I have raised points of order about the insecurity of the parliamentary data and video network. Although we were reassured that such problems would not recur, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that not long after we raised the matter, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) experienced similar problems in his constituency when information from the Government was being sent to a hairdresser in Blyth Valley instead of to him. So there are even concerns about the e-security of the House. The internet is therefore notoriously insecure and vulnerable to attack.
	There has also been significant controversy in the United States about the reliability and lack of security of e-voting machines. Companies in the USA that make the machines have refused independent scrutiny of their software for commercial reasons, raising concerns that there could be security flaws that have not been identified through proper testing. The technology correspondent for The Times, David Rowan, has remarked that
	"the commercial companies supplying the technology for UK election pilots say that security is their priority. But growing evidence is emerging that some of these companies have covered up security flaws in the past . . . If Mr Blair insists on rushing towards e-voting, he must ensure that any software companies awarded contracts make their computer code available for independent scrutiny, and that every time a computerised vote is cast a paper copy is printed to let voters know that ballots have been recorded as intended . . . It will take just one security breach to undermine public confidence irreparably".
	That is from The Times on 2 December—only a fortnight ago.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman's comments are extraordinarily valuable. Does not the American experience also demonstrate, however, that these machines have a strange predisposition to award a greater number of votes to the Republicans than opinion polls show?

Nick Hawkins: I was going to come to the so-called hanging chads controversy, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, in the main part of his remarks, supported the concerns that we are expressing.
	Another expert, Dr. Ben Fairweather, a research fellow at De Montfort university in Leicester's centre for computing and social responsibility, has said:
	"I have seen most, if not all of the pilot schemes demonstrated, and have spotted substantial flaws with some of them . . . There are serious worries about SMS voting. Operators can discard text messages if their systems are busy. Also people are obliged to key in long sequences to vote by text. It's a pale imitation of a cross on a piece of paper. Electronic voting in general has not reached maturity".
	That was taken from a publication called The Register on 31 July this year.
	The Foundation for Information Policy Research has asserted that election integrity can be assured only if e-voting machines produce a paper audit trail that can be verified by voters and later by election scrutineers. It remarked in The Register in May this year that
	"the only safe way to allow electronic voting is through machines controlled by election officials that produce an auditable paper trail. Anything else is an invitation for fraud to hackers and virus writers around the world and could destroy public confidence in our elections. It's always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems. Election turnout would be increased if citizens were convinced their vote would make a difference. Simply computerising the current system is unlikely to achieve this".
	 —[Interruption.] The Opposition say, "Hear, hear," to that. As the son of two research scientists, may I say that I agree totally that it is always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems?
	Most significantly, the Electoral Reform Society, the independent experts on these matters, has asserted that
	"the fact is that e-voting, whether by telephone, internet, digital TV or text messaging, does not raise turnouts in any significant way . . . We are concerned that any form of remote voting is potentially more open to abuse than polling station voting".
	That is the basis of one of our most significant concerns.
	Even the Local Government Association has maintained that
	"we have concerns about e-voting on a regional basis, particularly in the short space of time between now and the next elections. A failed e-voting pilot in 2004 could jeopardise this being seen as a realistic development for the future".
	Even if the Opposition agreed with the Local Government Association that that might be a helpful development for the future—which we do not—if even it says that a failed e-voting pilot could happen and could jeopardise that, that shows how bad an idea it would be.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that just one of the difficulties is that e-voting could only ever be an option alongside other types of voting, because it could never be ensured that everybody had access to a computer? Many people now use the people's highway in libraries, which presents its own difficulties. The selection of methods of voting during an e-voting pilot would make the audit trial to which he has just referred very difficult.

Nick Hawkins: As always, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. One of our concerns is that some of the voters who believe in the traditional method of voting, which has been tried and tested over more than 100 years, might be put off by feeling that their votes were being devalued in some way if they could not get access to a mobile phone or the internet. Ultimately, pilots will not tackle the general problem of voter apathy, as even Cabinet Ministers in this Government agree. On 26 April 2002, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills told Public Finance:
	"Generally, I don't think the experiments are the answer".
	If Cabinet Ministers do not believe that the experiments are the answer, the Government would be wrong to pursue them.
	Finally, I want to quote The Guardian—not my regular reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 17 April, the IT journalist Bill Thompson wrote:
	"I do not think it is possible to design an e-voting system that can be guaranteed secure against a concerted and well-funded attack . . . The Government's continued obsession with e-voting in its many forms, especially voting over the internet, is a perfect illustration of how style has triumphed over substance. Instead of finding ways to make people believe that voting actually matters, they want to reduce it to the level of texting a friend or buying a book online".
	Hear, hear to that. That is why we are so strongly against the experiments.
	When the Minister stands up, I hope that he will accept both new clause 4, to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names, and new clause 7. If they are included in the Bill, we will at least know that we will not be faced by such experiments and that the Government have conceded that all the points that we made in Committee and on Second Reading were right. We were right and the Government were wrong. The Electoral Commission now agrees with us that the security for the use of technology is not ready. The Electoral Reform Society and all those experts also agree with us. I hope that the Government will accept new clauses 4 and 7.

Christopher Leslie: We have heard that new clauses 3, 4 and 7 would prevent e-voting pilots from taking place unless certain security and contingency measures are in place. Similar amendments were tabled in Standing Committee, but they were not debated. It may be helpful if I set out our latest thinking.
	Electronic voting methods have been used successfully at the local level in nine authorities in 2002 and in 17 authorities in 2003. Overall, electronic voting did not significantly increase voter turnout, but it provided people with greater choice in how they voted. In e-pilot areas where traditional polling stations were open, more than one fifth of voters chose to vote by electronic means. Electronic voting therefore remains a key part of our longer-term plan to provide people with greater choice and access, reflecting their lifestyles and circumstances.
	The Electoral Commission's view is that at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme, no region is yet ready as a whole to pilot electronic channels. Although we still believe that such a pilot could have been both successful and valuable, the commission's advice is clear, and we are inclined to accept it. I can therefore inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to proceed with electronic voting at next year's European and combined elections.
	We recognise that our decision will be disappointing for those who are especially keen on electronic voting. The local authorities that have successfully piloted e-voting will, no doubt, regret that e-voting will not go ahead. However, we remain committed to the development of e-voting channels and will continue to work with local authorities and others to pilot those methods at future local elections. Our aim remains that there should be a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election some time after 2006. However, we have always been clear that we will not rush the implementation of e-voting, which we know is the reasonable concern of Government and Opposition Members. If it takes longer to develop, test and secure e-voting channels, so be it.
	Although the Government remain committed to electronic voting in the long term, we do not intend to rush its implementation. Given that I have said that we intend to pilot solely all-postal voting at next year's European and combined local elections, it is clear that new clauses 3, 4 and 7 are superfluous and that their aim has been satisfied sufficiently by my comments and the decision not to proceed with electronic voting. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will withdraw the new clause.

David Heath: Let me say at the outset that I welcome what the Minister says. I do not have a neurotic opposition to e-voting. Indeed, it was trialled in the South Somerset district council area, which includes my constituency. Although it had little apparent benefit for voter turnout, it provided voters with a further option, as the Minister rightly said.
	I opposed including electronic voting in the pilots because the technology is not yet available to make it safe and resistant to fraud. Although I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been made, it is absolutely crucial to have not only verifiable systems of identification that are not open to abuse, a proper audit trail that allows people to trace from where a vote was cast and a recapped facility, which is not available under the present system yet is critical to the integrity of the process, but public confidence in the system. Such confidence would have been put at risk by rushing ahead with the proposals.
	As the Minister said, some people will be disappointed by the Electoral Commission's conclusions. Disabled voters, whom I mentioned previously, will be disappointed because e-voting would have allowed them to cast their votes in confidence, which they cannot do by other means. They will be disappointed that further proposals have not come forward. Nevertheless, our reasoned conclusion must be that the technology is not yet right and that it would be improper to introduce e-voting on a wide scale until we are assured that that has been addressed.
	Although I welcome the Minister's response, I fail to understand why the Bill makes provision potentially to permit a form of voting that he does not intend to be used. The House is responsible for the legislation before it rather than ministerial assurances on secondary legislation, so consonant with the Minister's assurances, it would be entirely appropriate to make the Bill fit the circumstances, which is why I shall press new clause 4 to a Division. However, I shall not press new clause 3, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Conduct of elections under a pilot order

'Any pilot order made under section 2 may make provision for—
	(a) all-postal voting; or
	(b) any combination of postal voting and voting in person at a polling station;
	but may not make provision for any other manner of conducting an election.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Piloting conduct at european and local elections

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 4, after 'must', insert—
	', if a three-quarters majority of the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot agree,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
	'(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region unless he has first satisfied himself that the region meets the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region.'.
	No. 6, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
	'(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region which the Electoral Commission has identified as—
	(a) not suitable for a pilot scheme; or
	(b) a region for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability.'.
	No. 12, in page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
	No. 13, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
	'(c) Scotland;
	(b) North East.'.
	No. 14, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
	'(c) any region which borders Scotland;
	(d) any two regions with a common boundary.'.

Nick Hawkins: This group of amendments includes amendment No. 8, tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, amendments Nos. 1 and 6, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and amendments Nos. 12 to 14, which we tabled. Naturally, I shall do the Minister the courtesy of listening to what he has to say, but I anticipate that, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I will seek two separate Divisions, on amendments Nos. 8 and 6. However, we will hear what the Minister says before we make a final decision.
	We made it clear on Second Reading that we were very suspicious about the fact that the Government had lined up massed ranks of Labour Back Benchers from Scotland and from the north-west of England in particular, who were pressing for those two areas to have pilot schemes. Also, the Government had lined up several Labour Members from the midlands, who said that there should not be pilots in that region. If that was intended by the Labour Government or by those Back Benchers to put pressure on the Electoral Commission to recommend Scotland or the north-west of England, I am glad to observe that the tactic has not worked.

Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I entirely absolve of any suspicion that I might have. He has always taken, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, an intelligent interest in these matters and did so in Committee.
	The reason why we were pleased is that, last week, after the Government must have done most of their planning for Report and Third Reading, the Electoral Commission suddenly recommended not Scotland or the north-west, but the east midlands, which I do not recall any Government Back Benchers calling for, and the north-east, which one or two Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), supported on Second Reading.

Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that those Members who, on Second Reading and in Committee, called for particular areas to be used as a pilot for 100 per cent. postal voting did so only because they were invited to do so by the party Whips? Does he accept that that is an insult to those hon. Members who were accurately reflecting the views of their constituents? By exempting me from his accusation, he does not get himself off the hook.

Nick Hawkins: I repeat that I exempt the hon. Gentleman. The debate was constructed in a peculiar way last time, and I was by no means the only hon. Member to comment on it at the time.

Andrew Miller: Given the hon. Gentleman's experience in the north-west, and given that I am sure that he recognises the success of the pilot in Chorley, does he agree that there is merit in expanding from that successful pilot to a wider area, including the north-west? Does he agree that the commissioner should take into account the wishes of local people, who prompted some of us to submit evidence?

Nick Hawkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. If any Member of Parliament submits evidence to the Electoral Commission, it should be taken into account, and I am sure that it was. On his first point, which was about the north-west in particular, I shall quote to him the Electoral Commission report from last week.

Eric Forth: Before my hon. Friend does that, is he not curious about the identity of the local people who are being quoted by Labour Members? Might it not be interesting if we were told who those local people were? Are they average punters? Are they voters who are in some way dissatisfied? Might they just be—I almost hesitate to mention this to my hon. Friend—political activists who see some advantage in a particular disposition? Has he any information about that?

Nick Hawkins: I rather think that my right hon. Friend is right. Let me cite what the Electoral Commission says about the north-west, which might increase his concern about the suggestion from a number of Labour Members that the north-west was an appropriate area in which to hold a pilot.
	As one of its specific reasons for not choosing the north-west, the Electoral Commission, in paragraph 2.84 on page 19 of its report of 8 December, states:
	"There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting."
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to intimidation earlier. I am sure that he will agree that when the Electoral Commission, which the Government set up under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, refers to the issues that I have cited as a reason for not choosing the north-west, it is an important matter.

David Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing especially sinister in the fact that relatively few submissions were received from people in the east midlands, which has been chosen as one of the two regions. The rationale is well laid out in the document. The east midlands is the third smallest region in England and has a small number of coincident local authority elections on polling day. It has had successful pilots in recent times and supportive local authorities. We are happy about that.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is happy, but the regions have not been chosen yet. He referred to a recommendation to the Government. We would be perfectly content if only one region were finally chosen for an all-postal pilot. I do not think that any Labour Back Bencher would be safe to assume that the Government were necessarily going to agree with what the Electoral Commission recommended.

Dave Watts: St. Helens was involved in a pilot scheme last year, and we saw take-up double. Most hon. Members would think that that was a good thing. However, I find it strange that the Electoral Commission should say that fraud is one of the reasons why it has not chosen the north-west when that relates to the old system. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the old system, not the new one. When the Electoral Commission considered the pilot schemes, it said that it saw no evidence of fraud. Why should my voters be discriminated against in the way that it proposes?

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman could address that point to the Electoral Commission. Perhaps he has already written to it, but he can certainly do so again. The issue is a point for the commission; I was merely quoting its report.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman recognised that I spoke in favour of the north-east as a pilot region. I am glad that that is the recommendation. In response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I can say that I pressed the case for the north-east because my constituents in both the Gateshead and Sunderland parts of my area had experienced the benefits of all-postal voting and made their points strongly. That is what motivated me, as I am sure it motivated my hon. Friends.

Nick Hawkins: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady conducted a substantial survey, as it were, of her constituents and was reflecting that in her remarks. I would be interested to see a copy of the survey, if she would be kind enough to send it to me, showing her constituents' views. That might be an answer to the interesting concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which might be dealt with if we could see that Labour Members had commissioned and done their surveys.

Christopher Leslie: It could be sent by text message.

Nick Hawkins: I do not think that it would be possible to send the survey by text message, as the Minister mischievously suggests, because it would be far too long—an issue that arose when we discussed problems with text voting in the previous debate.

Eric Forth: I hope that no one would dream of attempting to provide me with information by any sort of text message, as I would be incapable of receiving such a message and even less interested were someone to attempt to send one. I would say, "Hard copy only", not only to my hon. Friend, but to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin).
	May I ask my hon. Friend not to be too seduced by what Labour Members, including even the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West say, until we can set the matter in context? We each have roughly 70,000 voters. I would want to see what proportion of that 70,000 had expressed wild abandoned enthusiasm for the pilots before I got too carried away.

Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend anticipates me. I look forward to seeing the surveys, which I, too, would prefer to receive as hard copy. When we see all the surveys carried out by Labour Back Benchers, we will find what proportion of their electorates want the pilots or whether a relatively small number of people have been expressing their views.
	On amendment No. 8, we believe that it is vital that three quarters of all the local authorities that have individual returning officers, including acting returning officers, should agree to conduct pilots. That is a reasonable amount, and not a bare majority. The Electoral Commission talks throughout its report about the crucial importance of considering the views not of the regional returning officers, but of the local returning officers in each local authority area. It is those people whose views are most important. Unless at least three-quarters of local authorities support the pilot, as our amendment would require, it should not go ahead.
	We shall hear in due course from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 1 is replaced by their amendment No. 6. Of those two alternative versions of new subsection (4A), Conservative Members prefer amendment No. 6, which is why we added our names to that amendment, but not to amendment No. 1.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that if more than half the returning officers in Scotland have said that they would like an all-postal ballot, there should be one. That is indeed what they have said.

Nick Hawkins: The figure in my amendment is not more than half: it is three-quarters. The hon. Gentleman may well be right—I have not seen all the responses from the returning officers in Scotland—but his problem is that the Electoral Commission, for the good reasons that we can all read in its report, recommended against Scotland.

John Robertson: But the Electoral Reform Society came out in favour of Scotland by saying that it should be a pilot area for the simple reason that it has only one election on that day. [Interruption.]

Nick Hawkins: I hear the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome expressing doubt about that. I am sure that he will give us his views in a moment. The problem for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is that the Electoral Commission, which is advising his party's Government, came out against Scotland, for good and compelling reasons.
	Amendment No. 12 queries whether there is good reason for ruling out London as a possible pilot area. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised that matter in the Chamber previously, I touched on it in Committee, and we thought that it was worth debating again. We are not surprised by any ideas that the Government have about London elections, given the peculiar things that have been happening recently, with the Labour party ignoring its own rules and allowing back into membership someone who was thrown out for five years.
	Amendment No. 13 suggests that we rule out Scotland or the north-east as pilot areas. I tabled it before I had seen the Electoral Commission's recommendations, and wondered subsequently whether I should take out the north-east, but decided not to do so. Conservative Members have always opposed having Scotland as a pilot—now, the Electoral Commission agrees—and there are no advantages in having pilots in two regions that border one another. For example, it may lead to confusion in relation to the media and political advertising. I found the Electoral Commission's assessment of that issue strange in one or two respects. Table 6 on page 15 of its report is headed, "Ease of organising discrete media opportunities in selected European Parliamentary regions". The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland will be pleased to see that Scotland is at the top of the table in relation to radio and the regional press. The north-east is third in relation to radio and second in relation to regional press—I can see some logic in that—but I had to query the whole basis of the analysis when I saw that Wales was down at the bottom in eighth place out of nine. Having spent a lot of time in different parts of the UK, it seems to me that Wales has a thriving and discrete regional press, and I cannot understand how it could possibly be described as having a less discrete regional press than the west midlands, the east midlands or the eastern area. That seemed bizarre and made me wonder whether one could believe the rest of the order given. Wales should certainly have been ahead of the west midlands, the east midlands and the eastern area.
	Amendment No. 14 returns to a point that we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, when we suggested that any region bordering Scotland would be inappropriate for the pilots because any region with common boundaries would be inappropriate. One reason for that relates to media coverage. I have many friends who live in the borders, both on the Scottish and English sides. Television and radio broadcasts are often received on both sides of the border, as is press coverage. The Electoral Commission has talked about some of the difficulties involved in that, and it is difficult to see how one could avoid the electors becoming confused in those circumstances. If electors in the same election are told that on one side of the border voting will take place in one way and on the other side in a different way, many of them will be confused. That could damage the prospects for participation.

Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that people living in the north of England do not know whether they live in Scotland or England? That would appear to be the only basis for confusion in a postal vote.

Nick Hawkins: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is accusing me of putting forward an over-simplified argument. It is not that people do not know whether they live in Scotland or England but that they will be confused about a European election in which people will use one voting method on one side of the border and another method on the other. I am not the only one expressing these concerns; the Electoral Commission has talked about the dangers of people being confused if the media cross borders and there are different methods of voting.

Dave Watts: In Merseyside, we had a pilot scheme in St. Helens. It did not confuse the voters in Knowsley or Wirral, who were capable of making their own decisions about how and when to vote. If there was no confusion there, why should there be confusion in other areas?

Nick Hawkins: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Electoral Commission's concerns. In a small postal pilot that is heavily advertised in one part of Merseyside such as St. Helens, it is possible to say to the electorate, "This is something new and different", but to hold a regional pilot in a European election with the media broadcasting across regional boundaries will cause problems. It is not just me who says so—the Electoral Commission believes that, too.

Peter Atkinson: I support my hon. Friend's argument by mentioning Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is a classic example of a large community situated right on the border. Its football team plays in the Scottish league, and it receives media broadcasts from both sides of the border. It would be deeply confusing to receive different messages.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend reinforces my point.
	I have outlined the concerns that we have expressed in this group of amendments.

John Robertson: The Electoral Commission talks about the areas that it considers should be chosen and describes in detail those that should be chosen, in order of merit, if the first two are not chosen. Of course, Scotland heads that group. One might think that, according to those criteria, Scotland should not be chosen, and I would agree. However, I have investigated what the returning officers in Scotland think about this. I have received a lot of help from several of them who, unfortunately, have to remain nameless because they are independently employed to do their job. I have it on good authority that it is not just more than half of them but nearly all of them who favour an all-postal ballot that would meet the criteria of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Why, then, has the Electoral Commission said that the Scottish regions should be excluded? It is because of resources.
	All returning officers have always complained about resources at every election, but it should be understood that resources will be available in the pilot areas. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to exclude Scotland, which meets all the criteria kindly supplied by the Opposition. Consideration should be given to areas where only one election is happening.
	Much was made of the fact that parts of Scotland are very rural and do not have postal deliveries every day. Surely it is not beyond the Post Office to organise more than one delivery each day, or even every other day, during an election—especially given that only one political party seems to want to enfranchise people. The English nationalists, known as the Tories, and the Scottish nationalists, known as the tartan Tories—along with their friends the Liberal Democrats—seem to want to ensure that we do not get a proper turnout. Why is that? Why should we not want people to go out and vote? Why should we want to put obstacles in their way? It was said on Second Reading that an increase of between 10 and 12 per cent. in the voting figures resulted from voting by postal ballot.

Pete Wishart: I must put the hon. Gentleman right, as he clearly did not follow what I said in Committee. I too want Scotland to be an all-postal voting pilot area, and was surprised and disappointed to find that the commission had excluded it, but surely he appreciates the commission's concerns. It is a question not just of resources but of a lack of experience. There have been only three pilot local government postal ballots in Scotland.

John Robertson: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman agreed with us that Scotland should have a postal ballot. However, I do not agree that lack of experience should prevent people from doing something. The Electoral Commission makes that point in its report. After all, how are people to gain experience? Should they decide not to do something because it sounds like a bad idea?

Pete Wishart: Yes.

John Robertson: I am sorry, but I believe that Scotland more than fulfils the criteria, especially those identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not made a decision, or if he is swivelling in any particular direction, I ask him to consider Scotland. It is an important part of the United Kingdom, and it is important for the Scottish people, like those in every other area, to be given the chance of a pilot.

David Heath: Most of the arguments on Second Reading concerned the principle of whether there should be pilot regions. We heard cogent arguments, which have not gone away, about the possible creation of an uneven election in which some had heard all the campaigning of each party while others voted without having had that opportunity. There was a general feeling that a disparate pattern of voting would be created.
	The amendments deal with recommendations on which pilot regions should be chosen and for what reasons. I think that my amendments Nos. 1 and 6 go to the heart of the issue—although I would say that, wouldn't I?—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for supporting amendment No. 6. As he correctly surmised, it was tabled after the publication of the commission's report, whereas amendment No. 1 was tabled before it. Amendment No. 6 proposes the inclusion of the commission's recommendations in the Bill. I should tell Members on both sides of the House that in this matter, the commission is the one firm rock on which we should depend. Whether or not we like what it says, it should not be for politicians, with their own interests at heart, to seek to persuade the Minister to overrule the commission.
	In considering the previous group of amendments, I said that there were two tests that the Minister had to pass this afternoon. He has passed one by withdrawing the electronic voting provision, and I have some confidence that he will pass the other one as well. However, it remains to be seen whether he will accept the commission's advice.

Dave Watts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prospect of half the voters in St. Helens not voting in the forthcoming European and local elections should outweigh any practical problems that may occur with the introduction of all-postal ballots? Frankly, I am amazed that people who supposedly support the democratic system want to deprive my voters of the opportunity to cast their vote in the way they want, which is the most effective way.

David Heath: I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. No one is deprived of such a vote—every single elector in his constituency, if they wish to do so, can vote by a postal ballot. [Interruption.] He says that they will not, but why not? They have the opportunity to do so. It is not a question of depriving people of a vote. If that is what he really believes, he should not support the Bill. Instead, he should introduce a private Member's Bill that would establish all-postal ballots on all occasions in all areas at all times. That is the only logical conclusion. [Interruption.] He is nodding, so that must be what he wants. I am sorry, but the Minister will be disappointed, because he has lost one of his supporters. The hon. Gentleman wants a conclusion that is quite different from that which the Minister is offering in the Bill.

Dave Watts: It is not a question of what I want; the point is that, according to the commission's finding on all-postal pilots, such voting is what the commission wants. It says that most people thought this a very positive move. In my case, the vote nearly doubled, and the national average is some 15 to 20 per cent. It is not only me who wants all-postal voting; so does the commission, which is why I find the recommendations so very strange.

David Heath: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but the commission has set down clear criteria that it has followed to their logical conclusion, and it has made recommendations accordingly. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) believes that Scotland should be included irrespective of what is said. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), he said that the commission had clearly supported the inclusion of Scotland. I do not know which part of the commission's conclusion that it feels unable to recommend that Scotland is suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004 he does not understand, but in the circumstances that seems pretty explicit to me.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me; I was talking about the conclusion of the Electoral Reform Society.

David Heath: In that case, I accept the hon. Gentleman's clarification and I apologise for misquoting him; I did indeed mishear him. In fact, the commission came up with not one but 10 different reasons why Scotland should not be included at this stage. I shall not take a subjective view as to whether Scotland should be included. In fact, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will perhaps recall, I criticised him in Committee for wanting to exclude Scotland from the Bill, which he still wishes to do so. One of his amendments would have excluded Scotland on the ground that it has universities and rural areas, and that those are debarring factors. He was wrong to try to exclude Scotland from consideration.
	The Electoral Commission has been given a job to do and it has done it. It has produced a recommendation that I did not anticipate. In its view, just two electoral regions are appropriate for pilots this year: the north-east and the east midlands.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the only thing preventing the electorate of St. Helen's, North from voting is the individual electors who choose not to vote? There is nothing impeding them from voting either through the ballot box or by availing themselves of the opportunity to use postal votes, which are available to anyone for various reasons. The electors take a political decision, for whatever reason, not to vote.

David Heath: I have to say that I partly agree with the hon. Lady. We hear about the supposed great successes at getting 30 or 40 per cent. of the electorate to vote, but that should be compared with the turnout in constituencies where votes matter in a general election, such as my own—

John Robertson: In every constituency.

David Heath: I wish it was in every constituency, but I am afraid that that is not the case. It is only in the marginal constituencies where people feel their votes make a difference. We should, of course, encourage voting by whatever method, but I am not sure that the argument of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) is realistic.

Joyce Quin: rose—

David Heath: I give way to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who I am sure will have something relevant to say.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned percentages of 30 and 40 per cent., but I must point out that in local elections in my area, the vote increased to 60 per cent. in non-marginal wards. That represents a huge difference.

David Heath: The right hon. Lady is right that local pilots for postal ballots are worth having. As I explained on Second Reading, a pilot scheme in my area brought about similar results in the local elections—

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: May I deal with the first intervention first? The postal voting went up considerably in my area, but the same effect was not reflected in electronic voting. I have never tried to argue that there is no case for postal voting. I argue quite differently in respect of European elections, as I am sure the right hon. Lady would accept.

Nick Hawkins: Although the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) talks about a good experience in her constituency, the hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated in Committee the implications of a controversial by-election in the London borough of Lewisham where the seat changed hands. The turnout hardly increased at all, so not all the evidence goes the same way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is concerned, as I am, that the enthusiasm for one postal pilot might quickly wane and be followed by the lower turnouts that are often seen in local government elections.

David Heath: I am also aware of the by-election where, as I recall, the Liberal Democrats won the seat from Labour. The hon. Gentleman is right that the turnout did not go up, so the experience is patchy, but that does not negate the value of the experiment. The argument is not about the concept of postal voting and its application in the pilot areas under previous enactments, but about its relevance to nationwide elections through its application in certain areas.
	To that end, my amendment No. 6 is surely one that the Minister cannot possibly resist. The litmus test is whether he accepts the advice of the Electoral Commission. If so, he will have to acknowledge that two areas were accepted and that the others were rejected as either unsuitable or, in the words of the Electoral Commission, as regions
	"for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability."
	Those precise words are incorporated into amendment No. 6.
	Let me say a few brief words about other amendments in the group. We have kept together quite well during the passage of the Bill so far, but I have to part company with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on some of the amendments in the group. I hope that I do so in a spirit of good will, but we differ on some matters.
	Amendment No. 8 is the lead amendment, on which we may divide the House. I have three criticisms. First, I am not sure that "a three-quarters majority" is clearly expressed. Secondly, I am concerned that the amendment mentions the majority of
	"the local authorities in the area",
	without clarifying whether that means principal local authorities, or authorities with electoral responsibilities or, as it clearly means in the context of the Bill, every local authority including every parish council and, in the case of Wales, community council, which cannot be a sensible proposition.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman would be right if the amendment could be taken to mean every single local authority. I accept his criticism that, if there is a shortcoming in the drafting of the amendment, it is that. However, I made it clear when I spoke to the amendment that it refers to local authorities that have a returning officer. That is what the Electoral Commission reports talk about. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is what was clearly intended.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Were we in Committee, I would accept his contention, but the Bill has reached Report stage, and will leave the House in the form that we determine now. We will return to this debate when we discuss amendment No.25, in a later group. In that amendment, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath proposes to remove the word "relevant" from clause 4, even though that word is used to identify local authorities with electoral responsibilities. There is therefore more than a technical problem with this amendment.
	In addition, the proposed benchmark of 75 per cent. also gives me cause for concern. I note that the Electoral Commission reports the figure in the north-east as being 74 per cent. That may change as a result of the Minister's announcement today. We do not know when that temperature was taken, and we need to be more explicit than the amendment suggests.
	For all those reasons, I cannot support the amendment. Like the Electoral Commission, however, I accept the principle that local authorities, and returning offices in particular, need to be consulted. They must be kept onside if the experiments are to work, and that is one of the criteria that has caused several potential pilot regions to be excluded.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath knows that I have difficulties with amendments Nos. 12 to 14. He wants London to be included again in the pilot regions, whereas I think that the mayoral elections mean that there are good and sensible reasons why London should not be used in a pilot. The hon. Gentleman also wants to exclude Scotland—for reasons that I still do not understand—and the north-east, on the ground that it is near Scotland. That does not seem an adequate reason for exclusion.
	In case we did not get the message the first time, amendment No. 14 talks about
	"any region which borders Scotland"
	and
	"any two regions with a common boundary."
	I was going to test the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on that in Committee, but never got the opportunity. Once the south-west has been excluded because of Gibraltar, and London because it is London, and Scotland because of the hon. Gentleman's definition, it is difficult to find three regions of which two do not have a common boundary.

Nick Hawkins: It is only two now.

David Heath: Until the Minister speaks and tells us that he has confined himself to two, we cannot be certain. There is a real problem with the geographical proposition in the amendment, although I guess that it had a proper basis in the initial stages.

John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible that the Opposition's anti-Scottish sentiment stems from the fact that people in Scotland will not vote for them?

David Heath: That is demonstrably true, time after time. Most importantly, people in Scotland will not vote for Conservative candidates on a first-past-the-post system. However, I think that there must be deeper reasons for the Conservative party's phobia about anything to do with the north. The phobia is not now confined to places north of the border; anywhere north of the Wash appears to be suspect in the eyes of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. But let us set that aside for the moment.
	In Committee, we debated the question of media areas, and whether it is possible to run discrete campaigns in areas that are not discrete. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that Wales was a discrete media area. However, people in parts of Somerset receive S4C, much to their upset, as they want to watch rugby being played in Bath rather than in Llanelli. In addition, there is also press intrusion in the north, as I believe that both the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post have high circulations in north Wales. So perhaps the Electoral Commission's assessment of the matter is not wrong.
	The crucial point is that the Minister should pass the test of agreeing to the views of the Electoral Commission, without any outside pressure or noises off or anybody saying that he has to take a political view. His job as Minister, especially in his most prestigious Department, is to take an impartial and judicious view of what is proposed and to implement it in legislation. I am confident that he will do so by accepting amendment No. 6, on which I intend to divide the House if I have the opportunity and if the Minister gives me insufficient assurances. 4.45 pm

Neil Turner: When the Electoral Commission consulted on this issue—the report is the result of that consultation—it put forward nine criteria from the Government and five of its own which, it said, it had distilled into four. The first was the number and type of local authorities, the second was the number and type of local elections, the third was experience—which was thought to be important, but not essential—the fourth was whether the media could conduct a discrete public information campaign, and the fifth was the enthusiasm of regional and local electoral returning officers. People might have some doubts about the efficacy of the recommendations of a commission that enumerates four criteria and enunciates five, but we should pass over that.
	The Electoral Commission did not take into account, but should have done, the lessons learned from the pilot. The whole point of a pilot exercise is to learn lessons from it, so that one can decide whether they should be applied more generally. The lessons of the pilot should have been taken into account when determining the criteria.
	Instead of taking the judgments of the Electoral Commission at face value, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants us to do, we should judge them against its own criteria. If we do that, it is clear that the north-east scores highly on almost all the criteria, and I would have no difficulty in making the north-east one of the pilot areas. However, the second recommendation is the east midlands and we should consider that more closely. The first criterion is the number of local authorities. The Electoral Commission says, in paragraph 2.119 of the report:
	"it is our view that a region with many small authorities would not be suited to running a pilot scheme in 2004."
	The east midlands has 40 local authorities, of which 36 are small district councils, but that has not been taken into account in the recommendations.
	The second criterion is the number and type of elections, but the east midlands will have only six. We will not learn much if the pilots run in only six local authorities. The third criterion is experience, but only three out of the 40 local authorities have had experience in the past. On the fourth criterion—the ease with which local media could run a discrete information campaign—the east midlands comes seventh for radio and fifth for the regional press. On the fifth criterion, the regional electoral returning officer says that he does not want a pilot scheme. He is quoted as saying:
	"I would not want our region put forward ahead of those who are actively seeking to be chosen".
	However, the local electoral returning officers have made a case for being included.
	The case for the east midlands to be selected for the pilot is poor when judged against the Electoral Commission's own criteria.

John Pugh: Is the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument that we, as politically motivated individuals, can better apply the criteria developed by the Electoral Commission than it can itself?

Neil Turner: Yes. This is no deus ex machina giving judgments on tablets of stone. We can surely make criticisms of the commission. Its judgments may be incorrect—as may those of the House—although that may be more likely in the case of the commission, as it may be less aware of the political situation.

Pete Wishart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have an electoral commission on the Electoral Commission to ensure that it acts properly according to his good judgment. If we take the route that he suggests, what is the point of the Electoral Commission?

Neil Turner: No, I do not want an electoral commission on the Electoral Commission, because Parliament should make the judgments. The commission gives us advice but we make the judgments. Parliament decides those issues.

John Robertson: It would appear that my hon. Friend's region is similar to mine, as in my region, too, only the people at the top were consulted and not the electoral returning officers for the whole area. Does he agree that in his area, as in mine, a vast majority of them are in favour of postal ballots?

Neil Turner: I shall develop that argument later, if my hon. Friend will permit me, although I do want to talk about Scotland now. It is only fair that if we make judgments, based on the evidence of the Electoral Commission, about one region, we should make judgments about all of them.
	In Scotland there are 32 unitary authorities that have weighty electoral experience, so that is a strong reason for holding a pilot, yet no local elections will be held there. Some people might think that is a good thing, but I do not. Our learning experience will be limited if mixed elections are not held. The commission found that only a few by-elections had been held in Scotland, so experience of the pilot systems was very limited. The score on media, however, was excellent. Scotland was at the top of the list.
	To return to the point made on several occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), a letter purportedly from the electoral returning officers in all 32 authorities states that they do not want the proposed system, yet he seems to have evidence that a substantial majority want it. Again, that raises questions about the judgment of the Electoral Commission and gives us a good reason to question its recommendations.
	In Yorkshire and the Humber, the commission found that there was a reasonably large number and type of local authorities and elections, including whole-council metropolitan elections, so we shall learn a substantial amount from that region. However, there was limited experience of pilot systems in elections, only half the number that have been held in the north-west. On the media, the area comes fifth for radio and seventh for the press. On electoral returning officers, the commission noted in recommendation 2.117 that
	"it is clear that Returning Officers would strongly prefer not to be involved in any all-postal pilot at the combined elections in 2004."
	Electoral returning officers in Yorkshire and the Humber do not want the proposed system.
	In the north-west, there is a wide variation in the number and type of authority. Various elections, including whole-council elections for the metropolitan authorities, take place at the same time. Experience of running pilots was second only to the north-east. On media, the region was fourth for radio and third for the press. The electoral returning officers have made a good case for going ahead with the proposals.
	We have to balance the risks relating to the number of elections with the enthusiasm of the returning officers. They are the people who will ensure that the election is properly carried out, and if they are enthusiastic, the risk of having whole-council elections at the same time in metropolitan authorities will be substantially reduced. We need to take that point on board.
	I am extremely disappointed that the Electoral Commission has come to conclusions that its evidence does not merit. Earlier in the debate, the Minister said that it was for him to make decisions on advice from the commission. To paraphrase my hon. Friend's words, he said that we are not giving the commission the right to make decisions and that that is the right of Parliament and of the Government. I hope that he will consider that point.

Andrew Miller: Is it not the case that the commission acknowledges that the north-west has conducted a wide range of pilots? There is no criticism whatever in the report of the conduct of those pilots. The criticism levelled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has nothing to do with the process that we are currently debating.

Neil Turner: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
	I want to wind up with one last point. Members from the north-west gave good reasons on Second Reading as to why their's should be one of the regions chosen. We talked about its diversity in terms of geography, economics, finances, social range and rural and urban areas. That argument could also be made for both the north-east and Scotland. If the regions are judged against the Electoral Commission's criteria—apart from the fact that those criteria do not include learning—then I hope that the Minister will reject the east midlands and come to his own conclusions on the basis of merit, rather than following the flawed conclusions of the Electoral Commission.

Eric Forth: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), because he is the first contributor to today's debate who has not displayed nauseating sycophancy towards the commission, as everybody else seems to feel obliged to do.
	I am one of those old-fashioned people—hon. Members will be astonished to hear—who is suspicious of the proliferation of commissions. We get ourselves into the most awful difficulty when we set up these bodies, appoint to them people who are sometimes great and good and more often than not who are neither, get from them a self-justifying flow of recommendations, most of which are probably unnecessary but are produced by commissions to justify their existence, and are put in the invidious position of having to respond to them. The hon. Member for Wigan has put his finger on the dilemma.
	I do not accept the argument put in some of the amendments that have been tabled that if we set up the commission and it comes forward with recommendations, we must accept them, because the people on the commission are wonderful, splendid, impartial and knowledgeable, and since we are politicians we cannot make a judgment on matters political. That seems to be the thrust of some of the arguments that I have heard this afternoon. My preference would be to get rid of all these dreadful institutions and to take responsibility to ourselves, as we used to do in the good old days—to use the parliamentary process and the governmental process to consider and produce options, to make decisions and to stand by them. The electorate will judge our decisions—those of them who take the trouble to turn out, a problem to which I will refer in a moment.
	As part of today's debate, I hope that some of us will think about whether we want these commissions in our lives. They are bureaucracies, they are appointed by politicians, they then make trouble for politicians, and I doubt very much whether they carry forward the quality of life or the quality of politics in our society today. For that reason, I do not feel obliged in any way to accept what this or that commission has recommended, and I follow the hon. Member for Wigan happily in saying that we should be robust enough, as should the Minister—knowing him as I think I do, he will be—to make our governmental, parliamentary decision, stand by it and be judged by it.
	My other point is that, sadly, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in his attempt to draw London back into this ghastly process. I was happy when I saw in the Bill that London was to be excluded. The voters of London are perfectly capable of making their own decision, with the existing provisions, as to whether they want to vote. It is not unreasonable to ask someone to go to their nearest polling station and to make their choice, in the traditional way, on a ballot paper. That is not an obstacle put in the way of their voting. In fact, it is patronising to suggest that voters are now so dumb, idle or venal that they cannot be bothered to stir themselves to vote in a polling station on a ballot paper. The arguments involved with this Bill come close to making the patronising accusation against our voters that they are incapable of voting in the traditional way. My view is that voters are perfectly capable of making the judgment and the effort— small that it is—to exert the privilege of casting a vote.
	The issue is important for millions, perhaps billions, of people around the world, many of whom have given their lives for the chance to vote. In this country, we are complacently saying that our citizenry cannot even bestir themselves to walk a few hundred yards down the road to a polling station to cast a vote in a ballot. If that is our judgment, what on earth are we saying about our voters? The business about "Can't we give it to them on a plate? Can't we almost bribe them? Can't we make it so easy for them that they might almost do it by accident?" strikes me as patronising in the extreme.
	I am glad that the Bill excludes London from the pilots. Proud as I am to represent a London constituency, I am confident that the voters of Bromley and Chislehurst, and indeed London as a whole, are perfectly capable of exerting their judgments, walking to the polling station and casting their votes. If Government Members are suggesting that their voters are so awful that they cannot even do that, they are not as in touch with their voters as they like to suggest.

Dave Watts: Government Members who support postal voting do so for factual reasons. They know that postal voting increases turnout. If postal voting increases turnout, it makes the system more democratic. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that anything that increases turnout must be good for democracy?

Eric Forth: I do not agree. That is an assumption that everybody makes and it is regarded as unchallengeable, but I am challenging it. A simple increase in turnout does not increase the quality of the democratic process. If pushed, I could almost suggest the opposite: the quality of the vote cast in the traditional way is possibly higher than one cast in an easier voting process. I do not accept the assumption.

Pete Wishart: Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage any type of voting other than the traditional one of going to a polling station and casting a vote in a ballot?

Eric Forth: No, I do not. Our traditional method has stood the test of time extremely well. It combines a degree of confidentiality—for example, we touched earlier on the risk of intimidation in the postal voting system—with a little degree of effort, which is in itself a very good thing. At its best, it provides a degree of integrity in the voting process that we should all welcome.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman understands the procedures of the House very well and I am reluctant to stop him. However, he will appreciate that he must not get into a Second Reading debate. The amendments are reasonably precise.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have allowed myself to be led down those paths, but you know how enthusiastic I am to try to help Members when they want to challenge my assertions. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
	Those are the reasons why I will not follow those who want slavishly to follow the commission, why I support the original wording of the Bill and why, on this occasion, I sadly cannot support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, which seeks to draw London back into the morass.

Tom Harris: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made two comments in his contribution that I would like to refer to. He made the accusation once again that Government Members hope to pilot all-postal voting schemes for party political advantage. I said this in Committee, I shall say it again now and I am sure that I reflect my hon. Friends' views: we believe that a net increase in participation in the democratic process is a good thing of itself, regardless of which party may or may not benefit. If there is a 100 per cent. postal vote in Scotland next June, I do not believe that the end result in terms of seats obtained by each party will be any different from what it would otherwise have been. The political process will have been improved, however, if we involve more people than would vote under a traditional voting system. I will depart from that point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it should be reserved for Third Reading.
	The hon. Gentleman made what was almost a throwaway remark as he finished his speech by saying that he disagreed with one of the Electoral Commission's recommendations—I cannot remember his exact words, but I am sure that he can check them in Hansard—but he contradicted his own argument. I totally agree with what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about the Electoral Commission. The commission makes recommendations; it does not pass down edicts from on high. We are the elected representatives of the people of this country and we are in the democratic Chamber in which decisions are taken on whether to instigate pilots for 100 per cent. postal voting or any other matter. The Electoral Commission provides advice but it does not tell the House what to do.
	In Committee, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that although the Electoral Commission's criteria were important, many were subjective and could not be assessed simply through a tick-box exercise. There will sometimes be a question of judgment when deciding whether criteria have been met, so the Electoral Commission cannot be allowed to have the final say on such matters. We have a Minister and elected Members of Parliament so that we may take the advice that the Electoral Commission is paid to provide and base our judgments on that.
	I do not have an especially dogmatic view on whether Scotland should be a pilot area, although I hope that it will be. If evidence were to show that Scotland's political process would not benefit from all-postal ballots, I would accept the Government's view. I shall press the case for a pilot in Scotland because I believe that Scotland meets the necessary criteria, but I shall not take a dogmatic approach. We all have our constituency and regional interests—I am no different—but I accept that arguments must be made for selecting specific areas. The arguments for Scotland have already been made, but I am prepared to listen to opposite views.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) admitted that the drafting of amendment No. 8 leaves something to be desired. He mentioned chief executives rather than local authorities several times in his speech, although the amendment makes reference to local authorities. It is one thing to accept the view of a chief executive who has professional experience and judgment and is appointed as an objective and apolitical member of staff by the political establishment—a local authority—but a chief executive's view is in no way equivalent to that of a local authority. A local authority may adopt a view at a meeting of a full council after the ruling Labour, Conservative or Liberal group has met in caucus to decide the view to take forward to the council meeting. A chief executive's view, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on several occasions, is the personal opinion of a senior council official, so the view of a chief executive could not be considered to be an equivalent alternative to that of a local authority. If the hon. Gentleman had intended the amendment to relate to chief executives, he should have used the words "chief executives" rather than "local authorities".

Nick Hawkins: It is conventional that a chief executive is the returning officer or acting returning officer for many elections, although I accept that that is not the case in all local authorities. Many local authorities also have electoral officers, but the person who performs the role of returning officer or acting returning officer is frequently the chief executive—I assume that the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and other parts of Scotland is the same as that in England. The amendment refers to local authorities, but if he examines the Electoral Commission's report, he will find that it refers to local returning officers, who may or may not be chief executives.

Tom Harris: I accept that explanation, but the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and has been a Member of the House for longer than me, so he knows that we must be specific when drafting legislation rather than assuming that those who will interpret a law in many years' time will refer back to an Electoral Commission report.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for once again entertaining us with his views on Scotland. He made the highly entertaining argument in Committee that Scotland should not be chosen as a pilot area because it has lots of students and farmland. He was challenged to name a region apart from London that did not have rural areas and was unable to do so. His latest argument is not only that Scotland should be excluded from a pilot area, but that any bit of land that touches Scotland should not be used as a pilot area. I want to take offence, but he has been so generous and courteous to me that I am sure his comments are in no way anti-Scottish.
	The hon. Gentleman's idea is remarkable. Is voter confusion really so prevalent in those parts of England that border Scotland? I am happy to give way to him if he can tell me how many voters in Carlisle thought they had a vote in the Scottish Parliament elections in May this year, because that is what he is arguing. I can imagine the scene. Someone in Carlisle is watching Border television news and hears the announcement that a postal ballot is to be held in Scotland, so he says to his wife, "We must have a vote then", while she argues, "No, we live in England." The hon. Gentleman's new argument is up there with the idea that we should not give Scots a postal ballot because there are too many students in Scotland.
	I am disappointed that the Electoral Commission decided that Scotland was not eligible or should not be chosen as a pilot area for an all-postal vote. I like to think that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister will give the Electoral Commission's proposals the serious consideration they deserve, but that they will, at the end of the day, make a judgment that is worthy of the House and the Government.

Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). I will not involve myself in the politics of the borders. As someone who represents a seat on the English side of the border, I am aware of the long history of antipathy between the two sides, which I am sure does not continue today.
	I chide the hon. Gentleman for being nit-picking about amendment No. 8. Although it may not be 100 per cent. technically, I can let him into a little secret. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not mind if I reveal that we will probably not win when we press the amendment to a vote. The purpose of the amendment is to have a serious debate on the views of local authorities. That is important. I hope that the Minister will help me with that when he responds.
	One problem that local authorities face in the north-east, which will be a pilot area, is the cost of the operation. My district council of Tynedale and others in the region are small rural district councils. We do not have the staff or the ability to have the large-scale mailing that is required for the postal ballot. They will have to employ mailing houses, if that is possible bearing in mind the security implications, to do the job for them, which will be costly. We will not know about that in detail until the Electoral Commission pronounces on it, but the issue is important for local council tax payers in the north-east.
	I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in what he said about the Electoral Commission. We set up such bodies, but all the Electoral Commission has done is bombard us with a huge number of expensively produced documents, which have made elections more complicated. What it is trying to do, and what it may succeed in doing, is to take the politics out of elections. People do not turn out to vote because they are turned off by politics and politicians. If we want people to vote in larger numbers, and we do, we have to make elections interesting.
	I represent the only Conservative constituency in the north-east. The Labour party in the north-east thought that it should be a target and drafted everyone in. Ministers, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) had to dress up in red shirts and sit cross legged on a muddy pitch with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Labour party thought that it had a chance of getting my scalp. As you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it did not and I remain a Member of this place. The turnout in my constituency was the second highest in England, being more than 70 per cent. Other turnouts in the north-east were down to slightly more than 50 per cent. In Glasgow, it was less than 50 per cent. People will vote when there is a reason. They will go to the polling station if politics is made interesting.
	My criticism of the postal voting system and of what the Electoral Commission is doing is that politics will be made more boring. In the north-east, we will have a job to stimulate interest in the European elections. The difficulty for the people of the north-east is that our campaign will be completely out of step with that of the national campaign. As the national campaign reaches a crescendo a day or two before polling day, our votes in the north-east will have been cast. People will receive their voting slips—I do not know when the Electoral Commission will rule on this—about 10 days, a fortnight, or three weeks before the election. They may decide to vote there and then, or they may decide to put the slip in the bin there and then. Later, as the national campaign starts, with television coverage, for example, they will start to become interested. They may then discover that they voted for the wrong party or that they threw their ballot paper away.
	We shall have a lacklustre campaign because it will have no national backing. It will be an entirely local campaign. That may be satisfactory in local government elections but, while postal voting may encourage turnout, if our campaign in the north-east is not as exciting as the national campaign, that will discourage voting. I suspect that the net result will be little gain for the north-east of England.
	I ask the Minister to ensure that proper assistance is given to local authorities, which will face difficulties. Will he please arrange, if possible, that individual voters can deliver their votes at the last minute rather than have to put them in the post several days in advance? That is the only thing that will give some of them an opportunity to see the national campaign come to a conclusion before they make up their minds for which party they should vote.

Christopher Leslie: We have had a useful and thorough debate on the selection of regions. Before I address each amendment in turn relating to the selection of regions for elections pilots, I shall set out the Government's intentions, having now received the advice that we requested from the Electoral Commission.
	The Electoral Commission was asked to recommend up to three regions or nations that might be able to pilot all-postal voting, and which of those regions would be most suitable to include an e-enabled element. It published its recommendations on 8 December, concluding that the north-east is most suitable, followed by the east midlands. The commission then ranked a number of other regions
	"which could be potentially suitable"
	but for which it felt unable to make a positive recommendation. Those regions, ranked in order of potential suitability, are Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west and the west midlands. The commission concluded that the remaining regions are not suitable for a pilot in time for the June 2004 elections. Moreover, it recommended that the Government do not include an e-enabled element in any of the pilot schemes. The Government are immensely grateful to the commission for conducting such a thorough and sophisticated study on that issue, ranking the regions against the criteria.
	I mentioned earlier in the debate our acceptance of the commission's recommendation not to proceed with any electronic voting on a regional scale in the June 2004 elections. We remain keen, however, to proceed with all-postal voting in three regions. In scaling up towards a multi-channel general election after 2006, we believe that pressing ahead with a wider range and variation of piloting provides the best opportunity to learn lessons and to develop capabilities in new electoral techniques. I can therefore announce that we intend to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east and the east midlands, and that we are also minded to proceed with all-postal voting in a third region or nation.
	The commission has been helpful in saying that
	"there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme."
	The Government will consider in more detail each of the potential candidates with a view to announcing the location of the third all-postal pilot in the coming weeks. There are good grounds for further consideration of several suitable regions, and it is right not to rush into a decision on the third pilot, given the advice from the Electoral Commission. For example, although Scotland is well placed as a location for a pilot because it has no local elections, returning officers voiced reservations that require consideration. We therefore intend to discuss the issues raised by the Scottish returning officers with them over the coming weeks to see if their concerns can be ameliorated and any difficulties ironed out.
	The Electoral Commission also took into consideration the preferences of returning officers in different parts of regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west. Further scrutiny by my Department of those issues will now take place, so that we can conclude which third all-postal voting pilot will proceed. The Electoral Commission regards that as consistent with its report and recommendations. All-postal voting in the north-east, east midlands and a third region or nation will not only improve the turnout in those areas but give voters a more convenient method of expressing their democratic choice in the June elections. The Electoral Commission will report on the lessons learned from those pilots, so that in future those new opportunities can be rolled out on a wider scale.

Joyce Quin: I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend said about the north-east. A strong case was made on the basis of the numerous pilots that have already taken place in the region, and there will be a warm welcome for what he has said in regard to my local districts of Sunderland and Gateshead.

Christopher Leslie: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. She has campaigned hard for the north-east, and I am glad that we have been able to make that decision, subject to the legislation. She has been vociferously keen for that decision to be made.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for not excluding Scotland, but can he assure me that all 32 returning officers in Scotland will be approached and asked about its suitability for a postal ballot, rather than the decision being left to one person?

Christopher Leslie: As I said earlier, it is right to investigate further the findings and advice of the Electoral Commission about Scotland. It ranked Scotland highly as a suitable candidate, but was unable to make a positive recommendation. However, we want to have three pilots and, over the coming weeks, we shall seek the views of returning officers to see whether there is a substantive case for their nation or region, whether there are obstacles, and whether those problems are surmountable.

Pete Wishart: The Minister cannot leave us hanging like this. Will he tell us which other electoral areas he is considering, and can he confirm that Scotland is now back in the frame as a pilot for all-postal voting? What is the time scale, as elections are now only a few months away? How quickly will we find out who will be next?

Eric Forth: Soon.

Christopher Leslie: As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we hope to conclude soon which region or nation will be the third choice for our pilots. The decision has to be made relatively swiftly over the coming weeks, as I said. The Electoral Commission set out in its report which regions and nations are suitable, and we are proceeding in line with the nature and architecture of its advice, which is the right and proper way to proceed.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister obviously feels under pressure from the large number of Labour Back Benchers representing Scottish constituencies, but when he and his colleagues are considering their decision, will they bear in mind the fact that the Electoral Commission, a creature of his Government, said that the regional returning officer for Scotland has informed it that there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot in Scotland with any reasonable guarantee of success? We will strongly oppose any suggestion by the Government that Scotland would be appropriate, as it would fly in the face of that rejection by the regional returning officer.

Christopher Leslie: I hope the hon. Gentleman will refrain from becoming too rhetorical on the matter. As I said, it is necessary now to investigate the views of the returning officers more thoroughly, as the Electoral Commission suggested in the report. May I correct a mistake that the hon. Gentleman made? It is not my Electoral Commission or the Government's Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to the House as a whole through the Speaker's Committee. I believe that it is widely respected and independent.

Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend has presented himself with a dilemma—a judgment of Solomon. When he makes his judgment, will he consider carefully the advice from the Electoral Commission about the success of pilots conducted in the north-west of England, and in particular the diversity of that region, which makes it ideally suited for conducting continued pilots?

Christopher Leslie: As I said, all-postal voting may be possible in a number of other regions. We are considering the matter further, so that we can conclude in a proper and reasonable manner which region or nation should be the third choice. The advice in respect of the north-west, as in respect of Yorkshire and the Humber and in respect of Scotland, is clear in the Electoral Commission report, which we will consider as a matter of urgency.

Dave Watts: If, at the end of my hon. Friend's consultations with the regions and after investigating the merits of each case, he comes to the conclusion that more than three regions could go ahead, why should not four or possibly five be selected? Will he reconsider the total number if the criteria are met by more than three regions?

Christopher Leslie: I understand the eagerness of many hon. Members for all-postal voting. The Electoral Commission recommended that eventually all local elections be all-postal. I am reluctant to move further than three regions or nations for all-postal ballots in the June 2004 elections, not just for practical administrative reasons, but for economic and budgetary reasons.

Patrick McLoughlin: I have caught most of the debate; I was not in the Chamber earlier. The Minister says that he is still considering Scotland. He asked the Electoral Commission to consider it. It said no. He told us that the Electoral Commission is independent, so will the decision be a political one?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should have been in the Chamber listening to the debate throughout, like other hon. Members. Let me quote from page 4 of the Electoral Commission's report. The commission advises—incidentally, it does advise, and Government and Parliament decide—
	"We believe that there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme. However, we do not feel able to make a positive recommendation on their suitability following our assessment of them against the criteria."
	It is that middle group that we will scrutinise in more detail, along the lines recommended by the commission.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend mentioned that the local authorities in Scotland will be consulted before a firm decision is made about a postal vote in Scotland. May I offer him some help and tell him that all my colleagues on the Government Benches from Scottish constituencies would be more than willing to contribute to that consultation, if he is looking for advice from the representatives? I am sure that Members of Parliament from the Opposition Benches, including the Scottish National party, which supports the measure, would also be willing to meet the Minister to persuade him of the right course. I am sure that that would apply to every Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament as well.

Christopher Leslie: I intend to make a decision relatively quickly on which third region or nation we wish to select. It is important that we have wide-ranging consultations, but I want to reach a decision relatively swiftly, and I hope that we will be able to make an announcement fairly quickly.

Alex Salmond: rose—

David Heath: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I wish to make further progress but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has not been present in the debate until recently, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

David Heath: Given that the Minister said that he is effectively overruling the clear advice of the Electoral Commission, is he asking the Electoral Commission to apply the same criteria to this repechage, and if so, how does he suppose the commission will come to a different conclusion? If he is not asking it to apply different criteria, why does he not say now that he will admit Scotland irrespective of its advice, so that everyone knows where they are?

Christopher Leslie: We are genuinely considering the matter along the lines of the process followed by the Electoral Commission, which has recommended that there should be three all-postal pilot regions. Given that framework, who would suggest that we should do anything but investigate further the other regions that the commission said were potentially suitable, although it could not make a positive recommendation about them? That is a reasonable and practical way forward, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Alex Salmond: I think that the Minister is doing exactly the right thing—[Interruption.] Do not be surprised at my saying that. I feel a sense of bewilderment about why Scotland cannot technically proceed with a postal ballot if it meets many of the criteria. Is the postal service in Scotland so inadequate in comparison with postal services elsewhere that it could not deal with the ballot? I think that he is correct to examine the matter more fully and to satisfy himself. There is a lot of support for proceeding with Scotland as a pilot area if that is technically possible.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is perfectly possible that Scotland could have an all-postal pilot, as could a number of regions in England. It is important to look further into that matter along the lines suggested by the Electoral Commission, and that is precisely what I shall do in the coming weeks.
	The amendments are similar to those tabled in Committee. I ask hon. Members to resist them, not least as they would jeopardise the proposal for all-postal voting in the north-east, the east midlands and a third region or nation. Amendment No. 8 would require three quarters of local authorities to consent to piloting. It would be wrong to pick an arbitrary threshold, as that would be convoluted and against the spirit of pressing forward with wider-scale piloting. It is true that the capacity and willingness of local authorities and returning officers are important, and we have considered those matters carefully. However, what is proposed is different from giving local authorities an effective veto over proceedings. It is in the national interest to scale up all-postal voting in order to improve access to democracy for the whole population. It would be inappropriate to allow local authorities to veto such plans.
	The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked about funding. If we had had more time, I would have given an assurance that there would be no additional financial burdens on local authorities, as I did in Committee.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 would involve proceeding only where all the Electoral Commission criteria were fully satisfied. We have now indicated our interim decision, which is consistent with the advice given by the Electoral Commission, which indicated that it had no objection to our proposals for the north-east, the east midlands and a potential third area. Indeed, it provided its advice in ranked order to enable that precise way forward to be taken. The amendments are defective to the extent that they seem to regard the criteria as quasi-scientific, rather than as broader factors such as population and geographical size requiring consideration, which is how they must be considered.
	In line with comments by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), it would be wrong to alter the role of the Electoral Commission de facto by making it the decision maker rather than the adviser, as the amendments imply that it should be. It has given us advice, but it is for the Government to decide and to be accountable to Parliament for our decision.
	Amendment No. 12 would allow pilots to occur in the region to be combined with Gibraltar—the Electoral Commission has recommended the south-west—and in London. As I said in Committee, there is added complexity in London because of the nature of the various local and mayoral electoral systems, which will require particular administrative effort in June. The south-west should not be eligible because of the special circumstances of any combination with Gibraltar, should that recommendation be adopted, given the new arrangements necessary for including voters from so far away. There has never before been integration of those electoral arrangements on such a scale. In any case, the Electoral Commission's separate consideration of the south-west indicated that that region is unsuitable for holding a pilot next year.
	Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would, strangely, exclude Scotland and anybody vaguely near it. No arguments of substance have been advanced in support of that ridiculous proposition. It would be perverse to penalise Scotland and its neighbouring regions by ruling them out and, particularly in the case of the north-east, it would go entirely against the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. We are reaching conclusions on the question of location. The recommendations of the Electoral Commission are important, and we are taking heed of its advice to work hard on identifying the third pilot area as soon as possible. I hope that the House will welcome the approach taken by the Government and reject the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief. The Minister has made it clear that, as we feared all along, the fix is going in. Despite the fact that the Electoral Commission did not recommend Scotland and that the regional returning officer said that it is clearly not ready, the Minister is foreshadowing his decision to bow to the strongly expressed views of Labour Back Benchers. Important issues are involved in our amendment No. 8 and Liberal Democrat amendment No. 6, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have added our names. I suspect that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will seek a separate Division on amendment No. 6. I seek to press amendment No. 8.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 357.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 1, line 18, at end insert:
	'(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region which the Electoral Commission has identified as—
	(a) not suitable for a pilot scheme; or
	(b) a region for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Pilot Order

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 2, line 14 at end insert—
	'(3A) The pilot order must make provision requiring the returning officer to provide (before the close of the poll at the election) polling progress information—
	(a) to such persons or organisations as are specified in the order or are of such descriptions as are so specified, and
	(b) at such times and in such circumstances as are so specified.
	(3B) Polling progress information is information as to the electors by whom it appears to the returning officer at the time the information is provided that a vote has been cast.
	(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B) the returning officer must be taken not to have seen the contents of any ballot paper.
	(3D) The returning officer is the person who is described as such in the order.'—[Mr. Leslie.]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Electoral Commission report

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 5 leave out 'voters' and insert 'electors'.
	No. 48, in page 3, line 18 at end insert—
	'( ) The report must also include an assessment as to the following matters relating to the requirement by virtue of section 2 to provide polling progress information—
	(a) its effect on the campaigning of candidates and political parties;
	(b) the use made by candidates and political parties of the information;
	(c) the views of electors and political parties about the provision of the information (including views as to its effect on turnout of voters and use of the information by candidates and political parties);
	(d) its effect on the conduct and administration of the election.'
	No. 49, in page 3, line 22 [Clause 4], leave out 'voters' and insert 'electors'.—[Mr. Leslie.]

Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A remarkable piece of news is running on BBC television at the moment. It reports that the Prime Minister has revealed in an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service that there is massive evidence of systems of laboratories throughout Iraq that could have produced weapons of mass destruction. He has also talked about programmes for the building of intercontinental ballistic missiles. I raise this matter because although I understand that the statement is based on the Iraq survey group's interim report, it goes a good deal further than anything that the House has been told. If true, the news is very significant and the Prime Minister should surely have told the House before broadcasting it. Has the Prime Minister asked your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to come to the House and make a statement on the matter?

Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, these issues were extremely controversial, both before the commencement of military action against Iraq and during the hostilities. They have continued to be of controversy, not least given the inquiry being conducted by Lord Hutton. Is not it appropriate that the House of Commons should be advised about these matters before anyone else?

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the points already made, can you confirm that Mr. Speaker has repeatedly ruled from the Chair that announcements such as this should be made to the House first? Can you therefore ask whether urgent inquiries can now be sent from this Chamber to No. 10 to determine whether the Prime Minister has spoken in the way suggested? If he has, can he be invited—very strongly—to come to the House of Commons promptly, in order that he may tell us what on earth is going on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, the Chair knows nothing of these broadcasts or their content. The Chair can say that there has been no request from No. 10 for permission to make a statement. These are obviously serious matters, and they have been heard by Government Front-Bench Members. I remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is due to answer questions in this House tomorrow.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Many hon. Members have contributed significantly during the Bill's passage through the House, especially by effective scrutiny in Committee. It is also worth commenting briefly on several other initiatives as we conclude the consideration of the Bill. First, I wish to put on record my appreciation of all members of the Committee, especially those who have also contributed to the debate today, for generating useful ideas and assisting the development of policy.
	One example is the amendment that has just been agreed unanimously, to change the part of the Bill that relates to the definition of a voter or elector. The amendment was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and affects the terms as defined in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The change that has now been agreed will extend the duty of local authorities so that when assisting the Electoral Commission they may be required not only to assist in the ascertaining of the views of those who have actually voted, but those eligible to vote and who chose not to vote. A consequential change has also been made to the nature of the Electoral Commission's report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and I am glad that we have been able to accept it.
	Members from all the parties who took part in the debate in Committee—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists, as well as Labour Members—made several helpful suggestions about how the marked register or—in legal terms—the polling progress information should be piloted in the case of all-postal ballots. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to provide political parties and candidates with an electoral register marked to show who had cast their ballot in the all-postal process, to be provided prior to the close of poll. Amendments were tabled and the Government have been able to accept them. That is the right way forward.
	My Department has been in contact with representatives of all the main political parties and electoral administrators about the form that a marked register should take and how it could practicably be produced. The conclusion was that it should not take the form of an electoral register marked to show those who have cast a ballot, but instead be provided as a list of those who have returned an envelope purporting to contain a ballot paper, thus enabling worries about human rights, secrecy and privacy to be overcome. Parties would then cross-reference the list with their own copies of the electoral register. That was the clear preference of all parties and the favoured mechanism of regional returning officers. The purpose of the change—which has now been made—is to state explicitly in the Bill the principle that the information will be provided and to make clear the obligation on electoral administrators.
	The rationale behind this Bill is simple: we need to modernise our electoral systems so that the public as a whole can express their democratic choice more easily and conveniently. There has been much discussion recently about the levels of participation in our political process, reflecting the sense that the turnout at elections is too low and needs attention. While there are no doubt deeper undercurrents that create voter apathy or fatigue—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has mentioned some of them—some practical and achievable steps can be taken now to make the process of voting more amenable and suitable to modern ways of life.
	I have announced today the Government's intention to extend the process, begun some time ago, of trialling new and innovative voting mechanisms, extending the scale now from the local to a regional level. All-postal voting is of benefit not just to those with difficulties physically getting to a polling station—those with disabilities or the elderly—but is of positive convenience to the wider population as well.

Annette Brooke: In Committee, the Minister assured me that we would see a dialogue between the Electoral Commission and the organisations that represent those with disabilities. Will he assure the House that he will take up any recommendations from the commission on people with disabilities?

Christopher Leslie: I can assure the hon. Lady that we have continued that dialogue, not only with the Electoral Commission but with organisations representing disabled people and elderly people. A number of initiatives may need to be included in the pilot order; for example, in relation to a device to assist visually impaired people to vote. The debate on those matters, in which she took part, was useful in developing policy.
	At the local election pilots so far undertaken, all-postal balloting ran at nearly 50 per cent. turnout, compared with an average of 33 per cent. where conventional arrangements applied. That illustrates the likely impact of the removal of some of the physical obstacles that lie between the voter and the ballot box. We propose to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east of England and the east midlands. I hope, too, that a third region or nation will be identified over the coming few weeks, following conclusion of the considerations advised of the Electoral Commission.
	The Government recognise that all-postal voting is not a panacea for all the problems of voter participation in our democracy. Nevertheless, it is surely right to take steps where we can on practical and popular improvements to make voting more accessible and simpler. All of us in Parliament have an interest in ensuring that our democracy remains healthy and that elected representatives have a clear mandate from their constituents to act. The Bill represents an important step forward in that objective and I commend it to the House.

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said on Second Reading, this is not a very good Bill. It is a bit of a mess. It started as a mess, and has been made worse by the Government's great surprise last week when they did not receive the response that they expected and wanted from the Electoral Commission. They did not receive the response they wanted on the number of regions; the commission recommended only two, not three. Indeed, the commission went further and said that there could be only one pilot region. On page 25 of its report of 8 December, the commission states:
	"Should the Government be minded to provide for only one pilot scheme in 2004, the Commission recommends that it provides for an all-postal pilot in the North East."
	Clearly, as we have been suggesting, the Government could end up with only one pilot region.
	During the last substantive debate on amendments, the Minister gave the game away. As I said then, and as we feared when I wound up on Second Reading, it is clear that the fix will be put back. We expect that the Government will bow to the demands of all their Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies and announce that the region will be Scotland. If they do, they will be flying in the face of the Electoral Commission's recommendations. Not only has the regional returning officer said that he does not think that Scotland would be an appropriate place for a postal pilot—although the Minister chose to quote selectively from the commission's report—but the commission's conclusions are even more strongly against the idea.
	Section 3.8 on page 26 of the report states:
	"The Regional Returning Officer for Scotland has submitted to the Commission, on behalf of himself and all 31 Local Returning Officers, that: having carefully considered the opportunity to conduct an all-postal ballot for the European Election in June 2004, we"—
	that is all the returning officers—
	"have concluded that the success of an all-postal ballot cannot be guaranteed . . . Returning Officers feel that the lateness of the proposal and the difficulties which this brings to planning and contracting are significantly more important than many of the questions posed in the Consultation Paper.
	This conclusion is based on very real fears that the necessary infrastructure, which would be required to support the process, cannot be delivered in time to ensure that the election could be conducted properly.
	The risks are identified and commented upon in this response. We believe that these risks are cumulative and centre upon concerns over: the legislative timetable; the general lack of experience in Scotland of all-postal ballots; the lack of time available for forward planning; the recent busy electoral history in Scotland; issues relating to the security of the ballot; possible problems of delivery and return of ballot papers; the very significant staffing implications of an all-postal ballot; concerns about the ability of suppliers to deliver effectively; lack of time to test critical computer systems; and resources to plan for and deliver the election."
	That is the regional returning officer for Scotland setting out his objections on behalf of all 31 local returning officers.
	I wanted to put those comments on record on behalf of my party because those present earlier who listened to the contributions of some Scottish Members—who, perhaps significantly, have not stayed for Third Reading—might have got the impression that local returning officers took a different view from the regional returning officer. It is made absolutely clear in the report of the Electoral Commission—which the Government set up—that the regional returning officer was writing on his behalf and on that of all 31 local returning officers. If the Government were to go ahead and soon or quickly—as the Minister variously put it—announce that Scotland was suitable, they would be flying in the face of all those detailed objections. I do not overstate the case by saying that the Opposition would regard that as a constitutional outrage and a recipe for disaster.
	The Electoral Commission therefore concludes, in the light of all those factors, that those issues remain unresolved and must be addressed before any decision to designate Scotland a pilot region. We are talking about elections in June 2004, so there is no way that all those serious concerns could possibly be addressed in time.

Christopher Leslie: indicated dissent.

Nick Hawkins: If the Minister thinks otherwise, I would be interested to hear shortly how that can be done. If he wants to set out how he would answer all those detailed bullet points, I will take an intervention.

Christopher Leslie: I understand the hon. Gentleman's excitement but surely it is worth looking into the points raised by the returning officers further to see whether they can be overcome. Is that not reasonable?

Nick Hawkins: No, because the Government set up the Electoral Commission. I agree respectfully with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about commissions and I will say more in a moment. If the commission does not give the answer that the Government want and expect, they seek to undermine it and go back on its recommendations. We are talking about an election in only six months' time. The Electoral Commission, all the returning officers and the regional returning officer say clearly that these matters cannot be dealt with in time, and they say it, if I may say so, in spades.
	The Minister conceded finally that everything that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said about e-voting in Committee and on Second Reading was correct. The Electoral Commission has supported us, and the Government have had to abandon their previous obsession with so-called e-voting. Unfortunately, they have not abandoned their other obsession with so-called modernisation. Today, the Minister added a further abuse of the English language with what he described as a multi-channel general election after 2006. I do not know what that neologism is supposed to mean. Whatever it is, I suspect that Conservative Members will dislike it intensely. I am getting almost to the stage at which when I hear a Minister—he is one of the worst offenders—trot out yet again their dreary mantra of modernisation I want to reach for a revolver or a sick bag.

Eric Forth: Perhaps the Minister had in mind reality elections, in which all the candidates go into some horrible room, and people are invited to telephone in and throw them out one by one.

Nick Hawkins: That reminds me of the old-fashioned balloon debate in a university or school debating society, in which people would vote to decide who should be thrown out. We know that every time the Prime Minister has a reshuffle he indulges in a political version of the balloon debate in deciding who has been slavishly loyal enough to stay in the Government's balloon and who must be thrown out. It is the same with modernisation as with some of the Government's other obsessive buzzwords such as "sustainability". The Government believe that anything that is old must be bad. Conservatives, however, believe in our parliamentary and electoral traditions. We say that the reason that they are old and have survived is that they work—they are tried, tested and true. We strongly agree with the basis of the Electoral Reform Society's concerns about the Bill, which they have repeated before Third Reading to assist all hon. Members. It clearly has great concerns about issues such as the misuse of postal ballots in houses in multiple occupation and student halls of residence, and even cases in which the head of a household could purport to vote on behalf of everybody in that household.
	I hope that the my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will acquit me of what he called nauseating sycophancy towards the Electoral Commission, because I strongly agree with him that the Government keep setting up such commissions, which is a recipe for constant flux. Once there is a commission, it will always make recommendations and it will always want to change things. It would be far better if we said that the reason why our electoral traditions have survived is because they work.
	On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made several important points, which I shall touch on because they are equally relevant to Third Reading. The Opposition believe that the decline in turnout for European elections, which the Government are concerned about, is at least partly because of the introduction of the party list system under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which abolished first-past-the-post voting in European elections.
	In our view, the decline is also because of the centralising, remote and bureaucratic process of further and deeper European integration. Perhaps the fact that last weekend's European Commission summit to try to draw up a new European constitution collapsed is a welcome sign that the European position is now collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacies and internal inconsistencies. There is certainly the problem that issues to do with further European integration will undermine trust and respect in the political system, and a referendum on any future constitution that may emerge from any future summit will be absolutely essential. We believe that we should return to first-past-the-post voting in European elections. If that were the Government's proposal today, instead of all the nonsense in the Bill, it would increase turnout in European elections, which the Government say is the object of the exercise.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke on Second Reading, he drew attention to the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee—which has a Labour majority and is a chaired by a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—urged the House to reintroduce first-past-the-post voting for European elections. We sought to introduce such a proposal in Committee. First past the post is the only system that maintains the immediate link between a representative and his or her constituency. That is particularly important now that we have these enormous, so-called European regions, which may have up to 6 million voters.
	The evidence on all-postal voting is mixed. In some areas, it has undoubtedly increased turnout, which is why we have not, as a party, opposed all the Government's proposals for all-postal voting. When examining the Bill, it is right to point out that the evidence is contradictory. In the Hackney all-postal pilot, turnout actually fell by 3 per cent., and in Greenwich it dropped by 0.4 per cent. Some of the postal pilots have not worked well even to increase turnout, which the Government say that they want to do.
	Our concerns about fraud and the dangers of personation remain. As the Electoral Reform Society has said, the chances of large-scale fraud are now back with us for the first time in 130 years—for the first time since the ballot reforms in 1872, there is serious concern about large-scale fraud. If the Government had not dropped their e-voting pilot plans this afternoon, we would be even more concerned that there would be large-scale attempts to distort a ballot by hacking into insecure computer systems. I am glad that the Government have belatedly listened to us and the Liberal Democrats and dropped those proposals.
	Many senior police officers—some of whom I have spoken to—including Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Churchill, the head of West Midlands police major fraud unit, remain concerned that postal voting systems have too few major checks or controls to ensure that the true identity of the voter can be relied upon. The Bill contains too little protection for the security of the ballot, which is why we tabled amendments to provide for greater protection.
	The security of the postal system gives rise to several questions and it might be relevant to mention the strange saga on which I briefly touched earlier. Although I have received hard copies of most Electoral Commission documents in good time by post, there was one that I did not receive, so I had to get it from the helpful people in the Library. Perhaps I did not receive it because of the pressures on the Christmas post, but if even a shadow Minister cannot get a hard copy of a relevant document in time for a debate, despite the fact that it was issued a week before, how can we be certain that the postal system will be able to run an effective all-postal ballot in an area as large as a European constituency?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed worry about potential problems in rural parts of north-east England such as his constituency. If the north-east is selected for all-postal pilots—the Government are likely to accept the Electoral Commission's recommendations on that—the area might be out of synchronisation with the rest of the national campaign. Problems such as the way in which the media will cover the election are set out in the commission's report and despite the fact that the north-east and midlands have been recommended for pilots, it does not say that all the problems have been solved.
	I agree with the worries expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). There should be more delivery points in the postal system. Given that the Bill will impose all-postal pilots on local authorities that might not wish to participate, it is important for there to be delivery points in each local government ward so that people who wish to vote by post will be able to drop off their ballot envelopes by hand in a secure location that is convenient for them. There is a danger that there might be strike action by Post Office workers, which has happened throughout the country in recent months and years, so there are genuine worries about the reliability of the postal service. Indeed, militant unions could regard the fact that an election depended on the postal service as a good excuse to try to blackmail the Government of the day, which would cause a real problem.
	We are also worried that, according to Postwatch, figures that were issued at the end of January 2001, an average of 1,500 items of mail are lost every week across every parliamentary constituency. I received a letter in the post only today from a constituent with whom I correspond regularly. She said that she wrote to me during the last postal dispute in London, but I have not received her letter. That situation confirms the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster cited earlier.
	We did not have time to discuss amendment No. 26 because of the earlier Divisions. Conservative Members believe that the Government should make it clear that local authorities will be fully funded for all the costs of all-postal elections. Many small local authorities, such as those in my area and Tynedale council, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, are in danger of being left seriously out of pocket because the Government keep loading more obligations on such authorities without providing the funds to pay for them.

Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is raising several perfectly reasonable concerns about the practicality of all-postal ballots, but the stuff about people being open to blackmail from militant trade unions is grossly offensive to postal workers. What is the difference between his argument and the situation if people were to refuse to deliver polling cards or man polling stations? He is going into the realms of fantasy.

Nick Hawkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but let us wait and see what happens when we have the all-postal pilots. The situation for polling cards is different. All hon. Members will be familiar with canvassing electors who say that they have not received their polling cards. Under the traditional system, we tell them that they can go to the polling station because if they can prove their name and address, the officials will accept that and give them a ballot paper. However, if ballot papers are delivered only through the post, electors who do not receive them will be deprived of their right to vote.
	Although we have tried to improve the Bill and the Government have belatedly accepted several of the things that we said—we welcome the changes that they have made—we remain worried about it. We do not think that it will improve elections. In the light of what the Minister said about ignoring some of the Electoral Commission recommendations and proceeding with three pilots instead of two, we believe that we are right to mark our disapproval by voting against Third Reading.

David Heath: There are times when Governments need to introduce legislation in haste because of events. It is rarely good legislation. A habit is forming in the Department for Constitutional Affairs that also existed in its predecessor, of introducing legislation in haste when there is no need and when they have failed to predict or accommodate within their legislative plans the deadlines determined by the electoral timetable. This is one of those occasions. Nevertheless, our consideration of the Bill, especially in Committee, has been good. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who were involved in that, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). He has sat patiently waiting to contribute to the debate and I hope that he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Progress has been made. The Government accepted my amendment No. 4, which they took over and called their own by adding the Minister's name to those who tabled it. I thank him for that because it improves the Bill. I am also grateful for his consideration of marked registers, which we pursued in Committee. He has accepted that they are in the interests of all parties and his proposal for them is sensible.
	I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for knocking on the head the idea of a mixed all-postal and electronic election. We still have grave concerns about the efficacy of voting by electronic means and the avoidance of fraud. Those concerns have been strengthened rather than eliminated by the Electoral Commission. I am glad that the Minister has ruled out mixed voting for the pilots.
	I wanted us to make more progress on fraud, personation and so on. The commission's proposals are good and need to be implemented. Although the Minister gave us vague assurances, they will be considered further in another place. The key concern for many people is whether the integrity of the ballot is maintained in all-postal elections. That is not only a problem for houses in multiple occupation. In general, there is a problem with the secrecy of the ballot and the ways in which it is more likely to be subject to malpractice than voting in person.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on people with disabilities. I hope that that work will continue and bear fruit so that everyone is properly involved in our electoral process.
	There are some key problems. I have said all along that I am not intrinsically against novel forms of voting. There are cases for exploring ways of making the voting process better and more accessible to our electorate, but that process must be beyond challenge and reproach. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) nods, but I disagree with his argument that the Electoral Commission has no role to play. We need a degree of external arbitration on what is beyond reproach if Ministers are to introduce proposals for the House to consider, as they have done. In this case, they have decided that the north-east and east midlands should hold the pilots. I do not accept the premise behind the Bill, but I do accept that recommendation. If that is the conclusion of the Electoral Commission, those areas should hold the pilots.
	The Minister is not satisfied with that. He wants a third region. As I said, if he is not changing the criteria that the Electoral Commission uses, it is bound to come to the same conclusion. In that case, he will have to override its decision for his own reasons, which he must give. If, on the other hand, he had accepted our amendment, he could have asked the Electoral Commission to do more work in those areas to ascertain whether it could come to a positive recommendation. The right approach would have been to say, "When you come forward with a positive recommendation for a third region, we shall adopt it, but we must have that recommendation."
	In the present circumstances, the Minister will do far better by just accepting the runner up, as it were—Scotland—and be done with it. Any other solution that the Minister comes forward with will be unacceptable. It will appear to be a gerrymander, whether it is or not and that is the problem that the Minister faces.
	I have not entirely supported the Bill. My colleagues and I opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. We do so because we do not believe that there should be pilots on such a scale in a national election. It is a sensible and reasoned proposition that when there is a national election or an international election, in the case of European elections, every voter in the country should be voting on the same basis, not with some voters in full possession of the facts as they are elicited during the election campaign and some not. Some electors should not have easier access to the ballot than others. There should be consistency. That is our key objection to the proposal. What the Minister said in the course of our considerations has not changed that fact. For that reason I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Joyce Quin: I welcome the Bill and I shall briefly explain why. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has presented the Government's case throughout our proceedings, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
	I naturally wish to express my pleasure that the north-east has been recommended by the Electoral Commission as one of the pilot regions, and that the Minister has accepted that recommendation, which reflects the scale of the pilots at local elections that we have already conducted in the north-east. I think I am right in saying that the north-east is the only region where more than half the local authorities have already been involved in all-postal pilots.
	The experiments have been extremely successful. Returning officers and others who have been involved in conducting such elections have not encountered the problems and genuine fears—I accept that they are genuine—that have been expressed by a number of Members during our proceedings. I accept that with all-postal elections candidates conduct themselves and campaigns are run in a somewhat different way. However, in our local experiments it has been possible to cast one's vote right up to the last day either at the civic centre or at some other designated point. It is true that even with all-postal ballots it is possible to vote fairly late in the proceedings.
	I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the difference in the national campaign when compared with others. However, we must recognise that local elections are often affected by national issues. Some issues that are relevant at local elections are relevant to local authorities throughout the country—issues relating to council tax, for example. They may be similar from one local authority area to another even though a particular local authority may be participating in a pilot and another local authority with similar issues may not. I do not think those obstacles are insuperable. If we were talking, as I hope we shall be, about rolling out on a more extensive scale, we would have to think of the consequences in terms of campaigning overall.
	I reaffirm how popular the experiment in my area has been with voters. In parts of my area we have had the experiments now for three consecutive years. Like all Members at local election time, I canvas, knock on doors, and speak to people on the doorstep. The reaction to postal voting has been extremely positive, and I do not believe that we should stick with a traditional way of voting just for the sake of it. Many people, particularly in households where both partners are working, have stressed the fact that the all-postal system fits much better with their lifestyle. Of course, people may know in advance that they are going to find it difficult to get to the polling station, perhaps because both partners are working, or because they work long or unsocial hours. At the same time, my constituents warmly welcome an automatic entitlement to a postal vote. In parts of my constituency, people are used to the postal system, which they have used for three consecutive years, so there would be resentment if we went back to what they consider an old-fashioned and less convenient way of voting.
	For all those reasons, I am very pleased indeed that the north-east was selected as a pilot for the experiment. I agree that we need to learn from our experience and evaluate carefully what happens in the elections, but I encourage the Government to think innovatively about voting systems. They should not be deflected by the doom and gloom that we have heard in our proceedings, because in my experience it is not borne out by reality.

Angela Watkinson: I have listened with great interest to the debate. When our debates started this afternoon, I was opposed to the Bill in principle because of my experience in the most recent local elections of the postal ballot pilot in Havering, which threw up a range of difficulties. I hoped that, during the debate I would gain confidence that those difficulties could be overcome, but having heard Members' contributions, I remain opposed to the Bill.
	The pilot in Havering threw up problems with the postal service, such as the non-receipt by electors of ballot papers and the difficulties of getting duplicates. In Havering, the one-envelope system was a particular problem, because a lot of electors resented having to put their declaration of identity in the same envelope as their ballot paper on the grounds of lack of confidentiality. The person who opened the envelope could link the ballot paper to the elector's identity, which was wholly unsatisfactory. There was also the problem of finding out whether completed ballot papers had been received at the town hall. A significant number of voters contacted me to ask how they could be certain that the town hall had received their ballot paper. In fact, there is no way of knowing. If we acknowledge the large amount of post that goes astray every year, we must assume that a certain proportion of ballot papers do not reach their destination.
	In principle, an all-postal ballot is a bad thing, because it removes choice from the elector. Anybody who wants a postal vote can have one. In the past, it has been necessary to give a reason, such as going on holiday, work commitments or illness. Now, however, anybody who wishes to vote by post can do so if they submit an application. Nobody is therefore denied a postal vote if they want one.

David Taylor: The hon. Lady posed a rhetorical question when she asked how people can know that their absent voter ballot has reached the count. The marked register is a public document and is available for inspection after the electoral process is complete.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights my point. By the time a voter has discovered that their vote has not been received, it is too late. It is certainly possible to find out whether a vote has been recorded, but only after the election has taken place.
	Choice should remain. If people wish to vote in the traditional way at a polling station, they should still be able to do so, but if they wish to have a postal vote, they should have one. That is preferable to choice being removed from people who wish to vote in person.
	I shall say a few words about electronic voting, about which I would be extremely concerned. Highly sophisticated hackers, the introduction of viruses and the opportunities for personation mean that secure and confidential electronic voting is a long way off. I for one would never wish to vote by electronic means, because I would have no confidence at all in that system. It would have to be part of a mixed method system, because one could not guarantee that everybody had access to a computer. Those who had access to a computer at home or in their local library—those are two different methods, for a start—could vote electronically, while others would vote by post or in person at polling stations. That would make the system extremely complicated.
	I take issue with the aim of the Bill. If I understand it correctly, the aim is to increase voter participation, which in itself is desirable. The proposals are aimed at non-voters, but people who do not vote choose not to vote. Nobody prevents them from voting. One can hardly say that voting is a complicated, onerous or difficult task. It is a simple matter to go to a polling station, and it is very simple to ask for a postal vote if anybody wants one. To make the process even simpler is wrong in concept.
	If people need to be spoon-fed their ballot papers, they are not motivated to make a choice of who they want to vote for. They must have some personal motivation to participate in an election. The proposal is one step away from knocking on somebody's door, putting a pen in their hand, taking the ballot paper and putting it in the ballot box for them. People must take some responsibility for themselves. Making an election simpler is wrong in concept.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does she agree that when we look around the world and see many other countries where people are still fighting and dying for the right to vote in the traditional way, it is rather ridiculous that, because of their obsession with modern technology, the Government want to demean and get rid of a system that people elsewhere in the world desperately want—a democracy that is tried and tested, and which has worked for many hundreds of years in this country?

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the situation in this country. We live in a free democratic country where everybody has the right and the opportunity to vote. If they do not take it, that is their choice. It is up to politicians to motivate people to use their vote by giving them reasons to think that that is important and makes a difference, not to make it so easy for them that they do not have to make any effort at all. If people cannot be bothered to vote, if it is too much trouble for them to ask for a postal ballot paper or to go to a polling station, it is their responsibility, not the Government's.

John Pugh: I rise for three purposes: first, to express my strong support in principle for postal voting, for entirely selfish reasons—it saves me a great deal of energy on election day if more and more people vote by post; secondly, to express support for the Electoral Commission's conclusions, although I do not tend to make a habit of that; and thirdly, to urge the Minister to resist other siren voices from the north-west and the erroneous idea that the north-west would be a good target for the pilots.
	I accept entirely that there have been successful pilots in places such as Chorley and St. Helen's, and I accept entirely that there has been an increased level of participation in those elections. That is well documented. However, there are specific reasons this time for not choosing the north-west. The Electoral Commission is right in its decision, not because there is no need to increase participation—there clearly is; not because north-west people are not ready for modernity—they clearly are; and not because it would affect the political balance—the figures last time showed that it did not.
	There are specific circumstances in the north-west in 2004 that make the region a bad choice. There is a real risk that the success of the north-west pilot in 2003 will not be replicated in the whole of the north-west in 2004. What was true in Chorley in 2003 may not generally be true of the whole of the north-west subsequently. The axiom "Chorley today, the world tomorrow" will not necessarily hold in this case.
	I should like to give a rationale for that. The bulk of the elections in the north-west will be in the big mets and unitaries. That is where most people will vote. Very large numbers of the politically disconnected reside in those areas. Eighteen of the biggest councils in the north-west happen to have all-up council elections. That will occur in all the mets. It is the product of a completely coincidental process in terms of the periodic boundary reviews. Unusually, across the north-west people will vote in June and not May; for three councillors, not one; in two elections, not one; and under two voting systems, not one. Adding many people's first encounter with a postal voting system will produce a recipe for a degree of chaos, as novelty will be piled upon novelty.
	My judgment—I think it is a fair one—is that, because of the complexity involved in this year's elections, people in the north-west will need more help than usual from polling clerks. A large number of people will be outfaced by the sheer size of the ballot paper and the various notes that will need to accompany it. Those who are least politically literate will have more problems. People in ethnic communities, for example, or those who have problems of social disadvantage may be most deterred by that scenario and by the bulk of paper. If one's introduction to the postal voting system is complex, but will not be replicated the following year, when a more simple procedure will be in place, it will not be a good basis for a pilot.
	That is not just my judgment. Obviously, it is only a guesstimate on my part, but I have taken the trouble to write to a good number of chief returning officers in the mets who face the problem that I have described. In most, but not all, cases, they anticipate problems not for themselves—they are capable and competent administrators—but for the people who have to fill in the voting slips.
	I wish to make one final point that is more delicate in some respects. In urban boroughs, including some in the north-west in particular, serious concerns have been expressed about electoral fraud. Much of what is said is based on anecdote, even though the Electoral Commission refers to it in its report, and much of it features in the media. I thought it would be very helpful to have some positive and exact statistics, so I took the trouble to write to the Government asking how many allegations of electoral fraud in postal voting in local elections in the north-west had been reported or investigated in the past 10 years. I thought that, if they were going to propose the north-west as a pilot region, they would definitely know the answer to that question. The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire replied:
	"Information on electoral fraud at elections is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."— [Official Report, 6 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 793W.]
	The fact that the Minister and the ministerial team do not know the answer to that question adds to uncertainty and to the prima facie case that the north-west is not the best area for a pilot. If he were to choose the north-west, which would run contrary to all the evidence that has been presented and to the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, the suspicion would be that the explanation was entirely political.

Eric Forth: I want to join my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) in challenging the underlying presumption behind the Bill, which seems to be something like this: it is terribly difficult, awkward and challenging to cast a vote in our democratic system, so we must help these poor voters, who find the whole thing overwhelmingly difficult, and make it much easier for them to vote.
	In my view, that is a patently absurd proposition. Our electoral system is tried and tested, and elegantly simple. Although the existing system is not foolproof, I suggest that if we are worried about personation or fraud within it, it should be relatively easy to deal with them. The Government's underlying presumption is extremely patronising to our voters. I am partly astonished by and partly in admiration of Labour Members who find themselves able to stand up in this Chamber and imply that their voters are almost incapable of meeting the challenge of the apparently extraordinarily difficult electoral system that they face.
	I do not share that presumption. I believe that our system is a proper and tried and tested one and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to exercise the privilege of voting by going to their local polling station and casting a vote on a ballot paper. That is not an obstacle—it is perfectly proper and appropriate in a modern, sophisticated democracy. We are, after all, talking about people whom we assume to be educated, if they wish to be knowledgeable, and who certainly have access to a wide range of information through the media.
	The whole presumption behind the Bill is wrong and open to challenge, and it is cloaked in the word "modernisation", which some of us have come to detest, and which the Government trot out on every occasion to imply that modern is better. I challenge that assumption. Particularly when one is involved in tinkering with an electoral system, the burden of proof must be on those who wish to make the change, because the alternative methods are in many ways open to doubt and suspicion.

Alex Salmond: If it had been left to the Conservative party, most of our electorates would never have got the vote in the first place. Although we cannot be sure about such things, I am pretty certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had sat on the Conservative Benches throughout the 20th century, he would have opposed every extension of the franchise.

Eric Forth: I am tempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I will not.
	I want to identify the Electoral Commission as one of the villains of the piece. The Government are fond of setting up such bureaucracies consisting of bodies of people, who, let us not forget, are appointed by the Government, and whose self-justificatory mission is to produce endless proposals for change. The Government pick the proposals up, put the modernisation label on them, and patronise the electorate by saying, "This is something to which we must all agree in the name of democracy." That approach does not hold up. We lived without the Electoral Commission for a long time, and we could certainly do so again: I hope that my party has the courage to say that and to pledge itself to do something about it.
	Any self-respecting Government should be perfectly capable of examining the electoral system from time to time and making proposals that are put to the test of the parliamentary process to see whether they survive. We do not need a commission that is set up allegedly to be impartial, only for the Minister—rightly, in my opinion—to exercise his political judgment to say, "Thank you very much for that, but we are not going to do it anyway; or we are going to do something rather different." That challenges the whole basis of the commission.
	Many of the problems of the postal vote were highlighted today. We do not yet have anything like a satisfactory solution to the problem of personation, which was mentioned several times. To my mind, however, the more difficult and challenging problem is that of intimidation, which was hardly mentioned. We all know that our present system is about as secure as one can get. An individual who feels in any way vulnerable knows that they can go into the security of the polling station and cast their vote in absolute secrecy: on that they can rely. That is not the case if a ballot paper is posted to them, because that makes them vulnerable to intervention or intimidation by some other person, be it a member of the family or another person in a house in multiple occupation. That should give us pause for thought. I have not heard anyone give even the beginnings of an answer to the problem; until that happens, I will remain utterly unconvinced that the way forward suggested in the Bill is appropriate. Surely we cannot ask our voters, especially those who may be vulnerable to intimidation, to move from a secure system to a potentially insecure system without having made any attempt at reassurance.
	The Bill is deeply flawed. The reasons that have been given for it are invalid; the role of the Electoral Commission is one that I deprecate; and I am sorry to say that the alleged solutions for which the Government are responsible are inappropriate, poorly thought out and in many ways counterproductive. I hope that the House will reject it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 166.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 2, 3 and 4 together.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

International Development

That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Sixth Replenishment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Employment Agencies

That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred until 12.30 pm on Wednesday 17 December.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 3 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
	That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Police Powers: Code of Practice) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

Broadcasting

That this House approves the Amendment [Cm 6075] dated 4th December 2003 to the Agreement [Cm 3152] dated 25th January 1996, (as amended by the Amendment [Cm 4797] dated 3rd July 2000) between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was laid before this House on 8th December.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 9 and 10 together.

COMMITTEES

Public Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr John Lyons be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mrs Anne Campbell be added.

Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)

Ordered,
	That Mr Andrew Rosindell be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr Eric Forth be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

CHILD TRUST FUNDS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the Order of 15th December 2003 (Child Trust Funds Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	In paragraph 2 (conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee), for "15th January" substitute "20th January".—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Eritrea

Tony Cunningham: I wish to present a petition bearing the signatures of about 5,000 people who are British Eritreans, members of the Eritrean community in the United Kingdom and friends of Eritrea.
	In 1998 there was a border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Those are two of the six poorest countries in the world. That particular border dispute developed into a war which cost the lives of about 180,000 people, probably putting back the development of both countries by about 20 years.
	When the war was over—it reminds me of similar sentiment at the end of the first world war—people said that it must never be allowed to happen again. Yet the border dispute rumbles on. There is at least a threat of further hostilities. We need a speedy resolution to the dispute so that both nations, after a war that has destroyed so many lives, can move on and rebuild.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take steps to discourage Ethiopia from pursuing the path of war. The Petitioners further request that the House of Commons urge the Government to advocate strict international sanctions in accordance with the UN Charter, in order to prevent the violation of the sovereignty of Eritrea and of the basic tenets of the UN Charter and International Law.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

GREEN BURIALS

Fabian Hamilton: My debate tonight deals with one of the last great taboos of modern society—death. However, I do not intend to be morbid or depressing tonight. Instead, I want to look at one of the most visionary ideas, which translates into a service that has helped many people already in my constituency, and offers hope, joy and comfort at the most difficult time of any person's life—the moment they lose someone close to them.
	A year ago, I received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Daphne Hubery, whose husband, George, had died of cancer in 1999 at the age of 77. He was cared for in the last few days of his life at the wonderful St. Gemma's hospice in my constituency, and after his death, his wife, Daphne, picked up a leaflet at the hospice about "green burials". Not knowing anything about the subject, she telephoned the name on the leaflet—John Bradfield—and so began her involvement in one of the most innovative public service projects that I have ever come across.
	The Prime Minister said a few years ago that
	"social pioneers could deliver modern public service"
	under a new Labour Government, so John Bradfield, a qualified social worker living in Harrogate, took up the challenge, which, in his words aims to
	"create new mechanisms to ensure that modern services are delivered in the new millennium."
	The phrase "green burial" has been around for a while. Indeed, the late George Harrison chose to be buried in that way. I shall go on to explain what the phrase actually means, but John Bradfield wrote the definitive book on it, entitled "Green Burial: the do-it-yourself guide to law and practice".
	Daphne Hubery did not want the traditional funeral service for her husband George. She spoke to John Bradfield and went to visit Gertrude's Pasture, in Scotton near Harrogate, just a few miles north of their Leeds home. She fell in love with that wildlife and nature reserve and decided that it was where George should be buried, and that she, her friends and family would dig the grave and perform the funeral themselves.
	The funeral service took place in the chapel of rest at St. Gemma's hospice. Daphne and George's children and four young grandchildren came to this celebration of George's life. Daphne told me that arranging the funeral without undertakers made her "feel empowered". She said that for her grandchildren the service she organised
	"took away the fear of death".
	Gertrude's Pasture is a three-and-a-half acre site in the beautiful countryside in Scotton, near Knaresborough and Harrogate—about 15 miles north of Leeds. It is one of the few sites in the country where a type of beetle known as the "May bug" proliferates during, unsurprisingly, the month of May. It attracts the rare noctule bat, a protected species that has a wing span of up to 14 in, making it the largest form of British bat.
	Gertrude Martin donated that land as a nature reserve in 1989 to the Alice Barker Welfare and Wildlife Trust, one of whose trustees is John Bradfield. The trust's registered office is in Harrogate. After her death, Gertrude gave her cottage to the trust as well, so that people could stay there for respite and enjoy the nature reserve itself. The land also accommodates the great crested newt, another protected species, which uses some of the grave structures to nest in. Placing permission was given by Harrogate borough council for use as a burial ground for up to 50 graves in 1995.
	Once the 50 plots were used up, the trust applied for further planning permission. Unfortunately, however, this time it ran into resistance from the planning authority, which is Harrogate borough council.
	Last Tuesday, 9 December, councillors from Harrogate heard the application for the site to be used for up to 1,000 more green burials, which would mean that it had a long-term future as a green burial ground. In spite of a carefully written report and application, permission was refused, mainly on the grounds that the authority could not control the frequency of burials on that site, and that permission for 1,000 graves might have meant that there would be up to "20 burials a day", resulting in traffic chaos. That is highly unlikely, given the average of one burial a month over the past four years, and the projection in the application of an average of one per week.
	According to the report in last Friday's Yorkshire Post, Harrogate planning officer Neville Watson told councillors that expansion of the site for 1,000 burials,
	"would have a adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area".
	Moreover, committee chairman Councillor John Smith told the newspaper:
	"If the area was used for burials at the present rate, the expanded burial ground could be open for up to 500 years."
	That is a slight contrast to the claim of 20 burials a day.
	Councillors were also worried, as I have mentioned, about the traffic implications, even though the site currently generates very little traffic indeed. It seems strange that traffic did not figure in the discussions in relation to an industrial estate on the other side of the village of Scotton. I am told that highways officers raised no objections to that application.
	I am very concerned that this project could now come to an end because of the hostile and highly conservative attitudes of local elected councillors, who have failed to see the wider benefits of a public service that does so much to help the bereaved and their families cope with the death of a loved one. I shall certainly support the trust in its appeal against this narrow-minded, bureaucratic and ill-thought-out decision.
	I turn now to the wider aspects of this matter: the work of the Welfare and Wildlife Trust, Gertrude's Pasture, and John Bradfield himself. I have said that I consider him a visionary in an area of work that is little discussed and on which there is little public policy. However, it is something that we will all go through at some time or other during our lifetimes. John is a strong believer in the new Labour philosophy of "joined-up Government"—a phrase coined by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). He believes that people are "ambushed by death", and that hospitals never prepare families for the anguish and emotional pain of bereavement.
	What the trust has done is to show how joined-up thinking in public services can be possible. Not only is a loved one buried in a beautiful place that is a wildlife reserve, but bereavement counselling can take place as part of the process of digging the grave and organising the funeral. I am not trying to put funeral directors out of business. There will always be plenty of work for them, but what I have seen and what constituents have told me convinces me that this is an idea that really works. However, it finds obstacles to its continuation at every turn, be they bureaucratic, unimaginative or just plain obstructive.
	When Sue Thorp's husband Mike died of cancer in 1995, she was able to start grieving immediately, knowing that he had seen Gertrude's Pasture and had even decided where on the site he wanted to be buried. She gained huge comfort from knowing that they had made the decision jointly, and that their daughter Jessica, who was then just two and a half years old, has since visited the grave on many occasions—even decorating it with thyme plants and encouraging the great crested newts to nest there.
	I visited the site in February this year, and was greatly impressed by the way it was managed and the tranquillity that it offered. What I saw, even in that bleak month, was a beautiful piece of Yorkshire countryside where the dead really could rest in peace and where the pain of death for surviving families could be ameliorated by the care and understanding offered by John Bradfield and the trust.
	I decided then to take up the campaign, on behalf of many of my constituents, even though the site is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). She is aware that I am taking up the issue and holding this debate tonight. As I have said, the trust's registered office is in Harrogate, and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) fully supports what I am saying this evening.
	When I walked around Gertrude's Pasture last February I came across the grave of Linda Biran, an active member of my constituency Labour party until cancer struck her down in April 2000. Her grave was marked like all the others with a flat stone on the ground. I knew that she had wanted a green burial and here she was. Her husband, Dr. Len Biran, fully supports the work of the trust and has spoken to me today to offer his encouragement.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the debate, will be able to offer hope to the many citizens of this country—including many of my constituents—who are not people of faith and who might choose the option of a green burial when their time comes. It will mean co-ordination between Departments responsible for planning and health, the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Although this debate is specifically about the planning issues, I hope that he will feel able to pass on to colleagues in those Departments the message that if joined-up government is to mean anything, it should mean the encouragement of visionary services such as Gertrude's Pasture, not their discouragement by over-bureaucratic local planning authorities for what appear to be spurious reasons.
	Given the fact that there will be an appeal, I know that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of this application, but I hope that he will feel able to consider a planning policy guideline that will give support to such services. Unfortunately, like taxes, death is a part of life from which there is no escape. People like John Bradfield have shown us how we can cope with the death of those we love. I hope that our Government will listen to what he has to say.

Keith Hill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on securing this debate. He is the only Member who has ever raised the issue of green burials with my Department, and I have, therefore, listened with singular interest to the matters that he has highlighted in the debate. He spoke eloquently, even movingly, and made a strong case for a more joined-up approach across Departments and public services on the matter. I will certainly reflect on the case that he made.
	I believe that it would be helpful if I were to contribute to the debate by setting out the current planning position regarding green burials. Although burial principally occurs in purpose-designed cemeteries or churchyards, there are some exceptions. Families with large estates have routinely built a mausoleum or similar building on their land, for the burial of family members. Historically, it has doubtless been the case that some individuals have been buried in farmland and others in gardens, but the practice has not been widely noticed.
	More recently, such burials have received a degree of media attention and it is believed that numbers have increased. Some of that has been due to the promotional activities of the Natural Death Centre, a charity formed to support a less formalised routine for funerals, as well as a more positive approach to death in general. It provides advice on green burials.
	Those who opt for a green burial feel there are significant advantages to that form of burial. They argue that it allows them to organise a very personal funeral, in which they maintain total control. It is also argued that there are financial and environmental benefits from the practice. However, the complexities of carrying out a green burial may also be significant, although those vary according to the location. First, it is essential that permission to complete a burial be obtained if the landowner of the ground is not directly involved in the planning of the funeral. Secondly, any individual or mortgage company that has an interest in the property needs also to be notified. Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that access to the grave may be denied or restricted by change of ownership.
	Most locations for such so-called green burials fall into two categories: on farmland and in a garden. Farmland locations are rarely overlooked and so will not offend neighbours or the public at large. The gravesite should be on land with a deep water table and be sufficient distance from watercourses so as not to pose a pollution threat. Electrical or other services must obviously be avoided.
	With regard to planning permissions on such sites, a limited number of burials over a period of time may not constitute a change of use and no planning approval would thus be necessary. Recent local authority certificates of lawfulness have decided that planning permission is not required for the non-commercial burial on private land of a limited number of family members, friends or other members of a household. However, it has to be said that those decisions have not so far been tested in the courts. Exceeding a "limited number" of burials may require planning approval for use as a cemetery or for mixed use if farming is also to continue.
	Safety in the excavation of the grave is a further consideration, as is the requirement to leave a sufficient depth of soil—3 ft—over the body. If it is intended to fence or mark the grave with a memorial, planning permission may be required. In effect, a single burial in a farm situation can proceed without an approach to, or the approval of, any council or other official organisation.
	Garden burials, however, are complicated by the proximity of neighbours who may object to a burial in their close vicinity and may be offended by the sight of a coffin or body. There may be legal issues and there are, of course, issues of relationships but otherwise the considerations that apply to farm burials are broadly similar. The particular difficulty in garden locations is the likely reduction of the property value owing to the presence of a grave, or even the deterrent value of the presence of a grave to any sale at all.
	Two major concerns influence that choice of burial. The first is the possibility of a future exhumation and burial elsewhere; there are legal means, in other words a restrictive covenant, whereby it may be possible to ensure that the grave remains untouched but they would involve costs and other uncertainties. Secondly, it is clearly the case that details of the burial will not be officially recorded, as they would be in a cemetery. None the less, it appears that there is a statutory requirement for the landowner to maintain a register of burials, even if only in the form of a note, preferably showing the location, in the event that the grave is disturbed by building or excavation works at some stage in the future. The Home Office recommends that it be lodged with the deed of the property. In addition, a certificate for burial issued by a coroner or registrar of births and deaths must be obtained and returned to the registrar by the person arranging the burial.
	I now turn to the circumstances in which planning regulations come into force: the locations where more than a limited number of private non-commercial burials are occurring or proposed. Cemeteries and graveyards, except those ancillary to a church, and burial grounds, including green burial sites, are classified under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as sui generis. Accordingly, any change of use would require planning permission.
	Although a single burial or a limited number of burials over a period of time may not constitute a change of use requiring planning approval, exceeding the limited number of burials may require planning approval for change of use to a cemetery or burial ground. In such circumstances, local authorities have the responsibility of deciding what uses the land may be put to and assessing the potential impact of that development. That is done through the local plan-making process and planning applications will be decided in accordance with such plans.
	Although it may be argued that woodland or green burials would have little impact on the countryside, it is for the local planning authority to determine where a change of use has occurred or will occur and whether to grant planning permission. Of course, the local planning authority will treat each application on its merits, on a case-by-case basis. Members of the public have an opportunity to contribute their views once an application has been registered, and the local planning authority has a duty to publicise the application.
	When a planning application for development relating to the use of land as a cemetery is received, the local planning authority also has to consult the Environment Agency and to take into account any informal advice it proffers. The agency's concern would be the possible environmental consequences for underlying aquifers and for nearby watercourses, springs and boreholes. The granting of permission for development should be consistent with agricultural, countryside, environmental, greenbelt and other national planning policy guidance, unless there are material and compelling planning reasons to do otherwise.
	Let me conclude by saying that I have been aware of the situation regarding the burial ground at Gertrude's Pasture in Scotton, Harrogate, and I understand that it has a complicated history. However, since, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, this matter is now likely to be subject to appeal, he will understand that in my quasi-judicial capacity as a Planning Minister I am unable to comment further. I am sincerely grateful to him for raising these interesting issues, and I leave him with the assurance that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister continues to keep these matters under review.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eight o'clock.